# Ram Deo Lal Srivastava v. The Commissioner/Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department of U.P. Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 511
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-04-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8825 of 2000
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-deo-lal-srivastava-v-the-commissioner-secretary-food-civil-supplies-40954
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Pensiondelay in payment-only reason disclosed
was certain amount due against the
applicant-but No notice given during
service period-No document produced
inspite
of
direction
of
court-helddirection issued to given entire dues with
9% interest with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

Held: Para 6

Thus the withholding of the dues of the
petitioner for such frivolous reasons is
highly unreasonable and deprecated by
this Court. A retired employee who has
given prime years of his life in the
service of the department is entitled
under law for payment of his retiral dues
immediately on his retirement so that he
may be able to live with dignity even
after his retirement.

## Text

2 All] Ram Deo Lal Srivastava V. The Commissioner/Secretrary and others
511
1995 while upholding the orders of
cancellation of appointment of field staffs
of the Revenue Department on certain
grounds
including
the
ground
that
appointments had been made without any
advertisement or without notifying the
vacancies to the employment exchange
observed:-

"The
State
while
offering
appointments, having regard to the
constitutional scheme adumbrated in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, must comply with its constitutional
duty,
subject
to
just
and
proper
exceptions, to give an opportunity of
being considered for appointment to all
persons eligible therefore.
The posts of field staffs of the
Revenue Department of the State of
Manipur were, thus, required to be filled
up
having
regard
to
the
said
constitutional scheme. We would proceed
on the assumption that the State had not
framed any recruitment rules in terms of
the proviso appended to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India but the same by
itself would not clothe the Commissioner
of Revenue to make recruitment in
violation of the provisions contained in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India."

27. Thus, for all the reasons stated
above, the appointments of respondent
nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the post of Chowkidar
in District Judgeship, Aligarh cannot be
sustained and are hereby set aside.

28. The writ petition, therefore,
succeeds and is allowed to the extent
indicated above.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8825 of 2000

Ram Deo Lal Srivastava
...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner/Secretary, Food &
Civil
Supplies
Department
of
U.P.
Lucknow and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri W.H. Khan
Sri Gulrez Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Pensiondelay in payment-only reason disclosed
was certain amount due against the
applicant-but No notice given during
service period-No document produced
inspite
of
direction
of
court-helddirection issued to given entire dues with
9% interest with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

Held: Para 6

Thus the withholding of the dues of the
petitioner for such frivolous reasons is
highly unreasonable and deprecated by
this Court. A retired employee who has
given prime years of his life in the
service of the department is entitled
under law for payment of his retiral dues
immediately on his retirement so that he
may be able to live with dignity even
after his retirement.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. On 9.5.1959, the petitioner joined
the service as a Clerk in the Food and
Civil
Supplies
Department
of
the
Government of U.P. He was granted
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
promotions from time to time and had
held the posts of Marketing Inspector,
Senior Marketing Inspector, Incharge
Deputy Regional Marketing Officer and
Regional Marketing Officer. After having
served the department for more than 35
years, he retired on 31.1.1995. He
submitted his pension papers on 5.5.1995
but due to non-furnishing of the ''no dues
certificate', the petitioner was not paid his
gratuity amount and certain other dues,
for which he approached the Pension
Adalat by way of filing an application.
After hearing the parties, on 16.12.1998,
the Pension Adalat directed the Regional
Food Controller, Jhansi to issue the ''no
dues certificate' within one month and
also directed for payment of gratuity and
other retiral dues to the petitioner. Still
when the dues were not paid, the
petitioner lodged a protest before the
Regional Food Controller, Jhansi with the
request to furnish the details, if any, of
any amount said to be recoverable from
him. When no response was received, the
petitioner again approached the Pension
Adalat. By order dated 5.7.1999, the
Pension
Adalat
again
directed
the
Regional
Food
Controller
to
make
payment of the gratuity amount and
commutation of pension etc. to the
petitioner. It was at this stage that the
petitioner received a letter dated 3.8.1999
issued by the Regional Food Controller
stating therein that an amount of Rs.
2,57,610.73P. was sought to be recovered
from him and hence the gratuity amount
and other dues were not being paid to
him. The petitioner has thus filed this writ
petition challenging the said order dated
3.8.1999, and also a further prayer for a
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to issue the
''no dues certificate' and pay the gratuity
amount of over Rs.47,000/- as well as
commutation of pension amounting to
over Rs.45,000/- and the security amount
of Rs. 2,000/- along with 18%, with effect
from the date of retirement till the date of
actual payment.

2.

By
way
of
amendment
application, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing of an order dated 11.11.2002
passed by the Regional Food Controller,
Jhansi during the pendency of this writ
petition whereby it has been intimated
that the gratuity amount of Rs.43,164/-
has been sanctioned and after adjusting
the
same
from
the
amount
of
Rs.2,57,539/- sought to be recovered, the
balance amount of Rs.2,14,375/- remains
to be recovered from the petitioner. Thus,
the said order has also been challenged in
this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri Gulrez Khan,
learned counsel holding brief of Sri W.H.
Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Pleadings have been exchanged and with
consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, this writ petition is being disposed
of at the admission stage itself.

4. The specific case of the petitioner
is that at no stage during his service
period or even thereafter, the petitioner
had ever received any notice with regard
to any departmental proceedings or
proceedings for recovery having been
initiated against him. The petitioner
contends that he has been paid his G.P.F.
amount and is also being paid his pension,
but the amount of gratuity, as well as
commutation of pension and security
amounts have wrongly been withheld by
the respondents, without assigning any
reason.
2 All] Ram Deo Lal Srivastava V. The Commissioner/Secretrary and others
513
5. In the counter affidavit, the
respondents have merely stated that a sum
of Rs.2,57,000/- and odd is sought to be
recovered from the petitioner. The said
plea came to light for the first time in the
year 1999. From 1995 to 1999 the
respondents
had
never
sent
any
communication to the petitioner nor
intimated the Pension Adalat in the year
1998 when such protest regarding nonpayment of his dues was lodged by the
petitioner. Had there been any order for
recovery passed against the petitioner
earlier, the same ought to have been filed
before the Pension Adalat, which was
seized of the matter on an application
filed by the petitioner in the year 1998.
After the filing of the counter affidavit by
the respondents, since nothing material
was stated therein, on 10.7.2001 this
Court directed the respondents ''to file
supplementary counter affidavit enclosing
the copies of the orders by which liability
of the petitioner has been fixed in respect
of the amount in question.' In response
thereto, a supplementary counter affidavit
has been filed in which it has merely been
stated that certain notices for recovery of
amount of Rs.4,000/- and odd, 2 lacs and
odd and 3,000/- and odd had been sent to
the petitioner and some other employees,
for having committed certain lapses. Such
notices are said to have been sent in the
years 1992 and 1994 but no copies of
such
notices
have
been
enclosed
alongwith the counter affidavit nor has
any order pursuant to such notices been
filed requiring the petitioner to deposit
any amount. Since the respondents did not
disclose about passing of any orders in the
counter affidavit earlier, this Court had
specifically directed the respondents to
enclose copies of the orders by which
liability of the petitioner had been fixed in
respect of the amount in question sought
to be recovered from him.

6. It is very surprising that the
respondent-authorities have not come
forward with clean hands and have just
been evading the issue and have not even
filed copies of the alleged show cause
notices or any specific orders relating to
recovery of any amount from the
petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the writ
petition, it has been stated that ''no
departmental action of such reprimand
was ever intimated against the petitioner
rather his work and conduct was throughout highly appreciated and praised by his
superiors.' The reply to this has been
given in paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit, wherein it has merely been
stated that the said averments are not
admitted
as
written.
Without
the
respondents specifying as to whether any
departmental action was ever taken
against the petitioner or that his work and
conduct had not been proper during his
service tenure, the averments made in
paragraph 3 of the writ petition would be
taken as correct. Even otherwise, the
respondents have not even stated that at
any stage, any departmental proceedings
or enquiry was initiated against the
petitioner with regard to his conduct or
with regard to recovery of any amount.
Thus the withholding of the dues of the
petitioner for such frivolous reasons is
highly unreasonable and deprecated by
this Court. A retired employee who has
given prime years of his life in the service
of the department is entitled under law for
payment of his retiral dues immediately
on his retirement so that he may be able to
live with dignity even after his retirement.

7. As such, for the foregoing
reasons, the orders dated 3.8.1999 and
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
11.11.2002 passed by the Regional Food
Controller, Jhansi are quashed. It is
directed that the respondent no. 1, the
Commissioner/ Secretary, Food & Civil
Supplies Department, U.P. Government,
Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow shall ensure
payment of the entire balance retiral dues
of the petitioner, which includes the
gratuity amount, commutation of pension
and security amount etc. within three
months from today alongwith 9% interest
from the date of his retirement, till the
date of actual payment.

8. Considering the fact that the
petitioner had been agitating his claim for
payment of pension for the last 12 years,
the petitioner would also be entitled to
payment of costs, which this Court
assesses at Rs.20,000/-. The said amount
of cost would also be paid to the
petitioner within the same period of three
months from today.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands
allowed with costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25086 of 2002

Ram Mohan Agarwal

...Petitioner
Versus
Secretary/General Manager, District
Cooperative
Bank,
Gorakhpur
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.R. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
Sri K.N. Mishra

U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees
Service Regulations 1975-Regulation 24Age of Retirement-employees working
prior to enforcement of Regulation shall
be governed by the contract-as the case
may be the age of superannuation would
be 60 years-otherwise-any appointment
after enforcement of Regulation-the age
retirement age shall be 58 years-in
absence of contract-can not be allowed
to work up to 60 years of age.

Held: Para 13

In view thereof this Court held that the
employees
appointed
prior
to
enforcement of 1975 Regulations and
those governed by the Settlement dated
22.2.1966 would be entitled to continue
till the age of 60 years and shall not be
retired on attaining the age of 58 years
in view of proviso to Regulation 24 of
1975
Regulations.
Ram
Swarup
Srivastava (supra) was also a case
arising from Allahabad Cooperative Bank
where existed a similar agreement as
involved in Lalji Srivastava (supra). It is
also worthy of notice that in Ram
Swarup Srivastava (supra) there was
another connected matter, i.e., Hari
Narain Ojha vs.Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Allahabad (Special
Appeal No.66 of 2003) but in that case it
was
found
that
he
was
appointed
subsequently and was not governed by
the settlement dated 22.2.1966 but in
view of the Joshi Award was liable to
retire on attainment of 58 years and his
appeal was dismissed by the Division
Bench. Similarly, in Dhyan Chand Gupta
(supra) we find that there was a
settlement dated 6.5.1965 executed by
Meerut
District
Cooperative
Bank
Meerut, providing the age of retirement
as 60 years and pursuant thereto he was
held entitled to continue till the age of
60
years.
Therefore,
none
of
the
aforesaid judgments are applicable or