# Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 958
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-22
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 12283 of 2023
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50649
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Gautam Dubey

Petitioner was appointed as a Safai Karmchari
on
01.10.1990.Although
his
papers
for
regularization were forwarded in 1996, services
were regularized only in 2008. He retired on
31.07.2020,
but
post-retiral
benefits
including pension were not released.
Whether
denial/delay
in
granting
postretirement benefits to the petitioner is justified?
Withholding of retiral benefits is arbitrary,
illegal, morally obnoxious, and socially
reprehensible. The Court condemned the
inaction by public authorities and called it a
"sin if not an offence." It invoked the
constitutional mandate of Article 12,
placing responsibility on public functionaries.

The writ is allowed.

Citations:

## Text

958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concluding remarks in Paragraph No.41 of
the report in Praveen Kumar Agarwal, it
was said that the petitioner's case shall be
governed by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985. At that
time, by virtue of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37
aforesaid, the right to receive pension for
members of the centralised service would
be the same as those of State Government
employees serving in connection with
affairs of the State under the rules
applicable to them, be it the Financial
Handbook or the Civil Service Regulations.
Now, that position stands changed with the
framing of the Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011, which apply to a retired member of
the service by virtue of sub-Rule (4) of
Rule 34.

29. However, so far as medical
reimbursement is concerned, the position
would be the same as it was before their
Lordships in Praveen Kumar Agarwal
and the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule
37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985,
would ipso facto attract the provisions of
the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 to
retired members of the centralised service
and their families for the purpose of
reimbursement of medical expenses.

30. More or less on similar line of
reasoning, a learned Single Judge of this
Court, when confronted with the issue in
Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P.
Thru. Principal Secretary, Department of
Housing and Urban Planning, Lko.,
2023:AHC-LKO:32771,
regarding
reimbursement of medical bills of a retired
employee of the centralised service, who had
claimed against the Banda Development
Authority, held:

"15. The second issue with regard to
payment of medical bills, it is clear from the
records that the benefits which were accorded
by the State Government to their employees
were adopted by the respondent no.2 on
18.11.2015, thus, there is no reason why the
respondents will not pay the medical
reimbursement allowance which have been
duly verified by the CMO and are pending
before the respondent no.1......"

31. This Court is, therefore, of opinion
that the petitioner has clearly established his
right to medical reimbursement of expenses
incurred in his wife's treatment, about which
there is no issue that she falls within the
definition of his 'family' under the Medical
Attendance Rules, 2011 applicable in the
case.

32. In the result, the petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned order dated
04.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, PDA
(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is hereby
quashed. Let a mandamus issue to the ViceChairman, PDA and the Secretary, PDA to
reimburse the medical bill submitted by the
petitioner for his wife's treatment on
23.07.2021, after verification in accordance
with law and the Rules applicable, within a
month of receipt of a copy of this order.

33. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 958
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 12283 of 2023

Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
8 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
959
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Harishchandra Dubey, Sri Aadiya Dhar
Dweevedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gautam Dubey

Petitioner was appointed as a Safai Karmchari
on
01.10.1990.Although
his
papers
for
regularization were forwarded in 1996, services
were regularized only in 2008. He retired on
31.07.2020,
but
post-retiral
benefits
including pension were not released.
Whether
denial/delay
in
granting
postretirement benefits to the petitioner is justified?
Withholding of retiral benefits is arbitrary,
illegal, morally obnoxious, and socially
reprehensible. The Court condemned the
inaction by public authorities and called it a
"sin if not an offence." It invoked the
constitutional mandate of Article 12,
placing responsibility on public functionaries.

The writ is allowed.

Citations:

1. Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs Broome, 1972 AC 1027

2. Rooks Vs Barnard & ors., 1964 AC 1129

3. Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K.
Gupta, JT 1993 (6) SC 307

4. Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Balbir
Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17

5. Registered Society Vs U.O.I. & ors., (1996) 6
SCC 530

6. Shivsagar Tiwari Vs U.O.I., (1996) 6 SCC 558

7. Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper
Construction & anr., AIR 1996 SC 715

8. Mukti Nath Rai Vs St. of U.P., (1992) 2 AWC
644

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Harishchandra Dubey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. Sri Gautam Dubey has accepted
notice on behalf of the respondent no.3.

3. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Safai Karmchari
on 01.10.1990 and though papers for
regularization were forwarded in the year
1996, his services were regularized in 2008
and,
after
serving
the
respondent
municipality, he retired from his post after
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.07.2020.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is
that post retiral benefits including pension
have not been released in his favour despite
certain applications moved by him.

5. Withholding of retiral benefits of
retired employees for years together is not
only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an
offence since no law has declared so. The
officials, who are still in service and are
instrumental
in
such
delay
causing
harassment to the retired employee must
however feel afraid of committing such a
sin. It is morally and socially obnoxious. It
is also against the concept of social and
economic justice which is one of the
founding pillars of our constitution.

6. The respondents being "State" under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its
officers are public functionaries. Under our
Constitution, sovereignty vests in the
people.
Every
limb
of
constitutional
machinery, therefore, is obliged to be
people oriented. Public authorities acting in
violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions oppressively are accountable for
their behaviour. It is high time that this
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court should remind respondents that they
are expected to perform in a more
responsible and reasonable manner so as
not
to
cause
undue
and
avoidable
harassment to the public at large and in
particular their ex-employees and their
legal
heirs
like
the
petitioner.
The
respondents have the support of entire
machinery and various powers of statute.
An ordinary citizen or a common man is
hardly equipped to match such might of
State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of
a common man by public authorities is
socially abhorring and legally impressible.
This
may
harm
the
common
man
personally but the injury to society is far
more grievous. Crime and corruption,
thrive and prosper in society due to lack of
public resistance. An ordinary citizen,
instead of complaining and fighting mostly
succumbs to the pressure of undesirable
functioning in offices instead of standing
against it. It is on account of, sometimes,
lack of resources or unmatched status
which give the feeling of helplessness.
Nothing is more damaging than the feeling
of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters, a
common man who has neither the political
backing nor the financial strength to match
inaction in public oriented departments, gets
frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the
system. This is unfortunate that matters
which require immediate attention are being
allowed to linger on and remain unattended.
No authority can allow itself to act in a
manner
which
is
arbitrary.
Public
administration no doubt involves a vast
amount of administrative discretion which
shields action of administrative authority but
where it is found that the exercise of power is
capricious or other than bona fide, it is the
duty of the Court to take effective steps and
rise to occasion otherwise the confidence of
the common man would shake. It is the
responsibility of Court in such matters to
immediately rescue such common man so
that he may have the confidence that he is not
helpless but a bigger authority is there to take
care of him and to restrain arbitrary and
arrogant, unlawful inaction or illegal exercise
of power on the part of the public
functionaries.

7. In our system, the Constitution is
supreme, but the real power vests in the
people of India. The Constitution has been
enacted "for the people, by the people and of
the people". A public functionary cannot be
permitted to act like a dictator causing
harassment to a common man and, in
particular, when the person subject to
harassment is his own employee.

8. Regarding harassment of a common
man, referring to observations of Lord
Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs.
Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in
Rooks Vs. Barnard and others 1964 AC
1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow
Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta
JT 1993 (6) SC 307 held as under:

"An Ordinary citizen or a common
man is hardly equipped to match the might
of the State or its instrumentalities. That is
provided by the rule of law....... A public
functionary if he acts maliciously or
oppressively and the exercise of power
results in harassment and agony then it is
not an exercise of power but its abuse. No
law provides protection against it. He who
is
responsible
for
it
must
suffer
it...........Harassment of a common man by
public authorities is socially abhorring and
legally impermissible. It may harm him
personally but the injury to society is far
more grievous." (para 10)

9. The above observations as such
have
been
reiterated
in
Ghaziabad
8 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
961
Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh
JT 2004 (5) SC 17.

10. In a democratic system governed by
rule of law, the Government does not mean a
lax Government. The public servants hold
their offices in trust and are expected to
perform with due diligence particularly so
that their action or inaction may not cause
any undue hardship and harassment to a
common man. Whenever it comes to the
notice of this Court that the Government or
its officials have acted with gross negligence
and unmindful action causing harassment of a
common and helpless man, this Court has
never been a silent spectator but always
reacted to bring the authorities to law.

11. In Registered Society Vs. Union of
India and Others (1996) 6 SCC 530 the
Apex court said:

"No public servant can say "you may set
aside an order on the ground of mala fide but
you can not hold me personally liable" No
public servant can arrogate in himself the
power to act in a manner which is arbitrary".

12. In Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of
India (1996) 6 SCC 558 the Apex Court has
held:

"An arbitrary system indeed must
always be a corrupt one. There never was a
man who thought he had no law but his own
will who did not soon find that he had no end
but his own profit."

13. In Delhi Development Authority
Vs. Skipper Construction and Another
AIR 1996 SC 715 has held as follows:

"A democratic Government does not
mean a lax Government. The rules of
procedure and/or principles of natural
justice are not mean to enable the guilty to
delay and defeat the just retribution. The
wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly
but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they
do grind steadily and grind well and truly.
The justice system cannot be allowed to
become soft, supine and spineless."

14. This Court, way back in the year
1992, in the case of Mukti Nath Rai Vs.
State
of
U.P.
(through
the
Superintending Engineer, P.W.D.) and
others: (1992) 2 AWC 644, had issued
GENERAL MANDAMUS to all the
Departments under the State Government
to expeditiously complete all formalities for
releasing the post retiral dues. Relevant
directions issued by the said judgment are
being extracted herein below:-

"6. In these hard days it is essential
that payment of pension should begin
promptly. A society is judged by the care it
takes for its aged and infirm. In these
circumstances I regard it necessary to issue
a
general
mandamus
to
all
U.P.
government departments.

7. The relevant proceedural rules for
grant of pension are contained in the U.P.
Civil Service Regulations (Published in the
U.P. Pension Manual), and other rules,
and government orders relevant to pension.
Rules 906 to 960 of the Civil Service
Regulations meticulously lay down the
procedure for grant of pension, and
throughout these rules the emphasis is on
promptness (as is evident from the
repreated use of the word 'promptly',
'immediately' etc.). Rule 906 lays down that
every Head of Department shall have a list
prepared every six months, i.e. on the 1st
January, and 1st July each year and of all
gazetted and non-gazetted Government
servants who are due to retire within the
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
next 12 to 18 months of that date. A copy
of the list shall be sent to the Audit officer
not later than 31st January or 31st July,
as the case may be of that year.

9. I, therefore, direct that henceforth
rules 906 to 960 of the Civil Service
regulations be followed strictly by all
concerned
officials,
and
payment
of
pension must begin promptly on the
retirement of U.P. Government employee.
This mandamus must be strictly complied
with, and all those responsible for its
violation,
whether
in
the
parent
department of the retiring employee or in
the Accountant General's office shall be
held accountable at this Court for such
violation.

12. A copy of this judgment will be
sent
to
the
Chief
Secretary,
U.P.
Government,
Lucknow
and
also
the
Accountant General, U.P., Allahabad. The
Chief Secretary is directed to circulate
copies of this judgment to all heads of
departments for compliance of the general
mandamus hereinbefore issued."

15. As a matter of experience and
with most anguish, it is observed that the
said general mandamus is not being
obeyed
by
the
departments
and,
therefore, this Court is flooded with
hundreds and thousands of writ petitions
claiming post retiral benefits.

16. This writ petition is being
disposed of in the following terms:-

(a) The Executive Officer, Nagar
Palika Parishad, Seohara, District Bijnor
(respondent no.2) shall take up the matter
with utmost priority and take a decision on
the admissibility of post retiral benefits
payable to the petitioner, not later than by
15.10.2023.

(b) The Registrar General of this
Court is directed to send a copy of this
order to the Chief Secretary of the State
Government, U.P., Lucknow for the
purposes of issuance of requisite circular
to all the Departments under the control
of the State Government to ensure that
the directions issued by this Court in the
case of Mukti Nath Rai (supra), as
mentioned herein above, be complied
with in their true letter and spirit so that
the State, its instrumentalities and
common man may not indulge in
unnecessarily litigation.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 962
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 12438 of 2023
alongwith
Writ- A No. 17855 of 2022

Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Police Act, 1861 -
Section 7 - UP Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 - R. 14 - Appendix-1 -
Departmental enquiry - Procedure - No
approval to the chargesheet by competent
authority was alleged - Later on another
chargesheet was issued with the approval
of competent authority - Effect - Held,
the earlier chargesheet, that was issued
and signed by the inquiry officer himself.
was not at all required to be approved by