# Ram Nagina Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 909
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-04-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66995 of 2008
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-nagina-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43029
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Pension
and gratuity-with-held on ground of
pendency of criminal case-admittedly no
departmental enquiry pending-held-no
ground
for
withholding
pension-any
amount excess liable to be adjusted-with
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
direction to pay full pension-with liberty
to initiate departmental proceeding after
decision of criminal case.

Held: Para-6 & 7

## Text

2 All]. Ram Nagina Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
909
mentioned that the excess amount of
Rs.1,12,525/- has been made in the name
of Mohd. Idrish in the financial year
1996-97, therefore, the plea of the
respondent that only a sum of Rs.52,083/-
has been paid cannot be accepted at this
stage. So far as the payment in excess is
concerned, we are of the opinion that it is
not in dispute. The amount which has
been paid in excess was not legally due to
the respondent, it was a public money and
cannot be retained illegally. The Apex
Court in the case of 'Chandi Prasad
Uniyal
and
others
Vs.
State
of
Uttarakhand and others' reported in 2012
(4) ESC 509 (SC) (Supra) on a
consideration of several decisions of the
Apex Court has held as follows:-

"We are concerned with the excess
payment of public money which is often
described as "tax payers money" which
belongs neither to the officers who have
effected over-payment nor that of the
recipients. We fail to see why the concept
of fraud or misrepresentation is being
brought in such situations. Question to be
asked is whether excess money has been
paid or not may be due to a bona fide
mistake.
Possibly,
effecting
excess
payment of public money by Government
Officers, may be due to various reasons
like negligence, carelessness, collusion,
favouritism etc. because money in such
situation does not belong to the payer or
the payee. Situations may also arise
where both the payer and the payee are at
fault, then the mistake is mutual.
Payments are being effected in many
situations without any authority of law.
Any
amount
paid/received
without
authority of law can always be recovered
barring
few
exceptions
of
extreme
hardships but not as a matter of right, in
such situations law implies an obligation
on the payee to repay the money,
otherwise it would amount to unjust
enrichment."

7. We are of the opinion that the
issue involved is squarely covered by the
decision of the Apex Court referred herein
above. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order dated 11.08.2010 passed
in Original Application No.1392 of 2009
'Mohd. Idrish Vs. Union of India and
others' is set aside. The respondent is
directed
to
make
the
payment
of
Rs.1,12,525/- within a period of three
months which may be accepted by the
petitioners in three installments. It is
made clear that apart from the aforesaid
amount the respondent may not be liable
to pay any other amount.

8. Both the writ petitions stand
allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66995 of 2008

Ram Nagina Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Pension
and gratuity-with-held on ground of
pendency of criminal case-admittedly no
departmental enquiry pending-held-no
ground
for
withholding
pension-any
amount excess liable to be adjusted-with
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
direction to pay full pension-with liberty
to initiate departmental proceeding after
decision of criminal case.

Held: Para-6 & 7
6. Admittedly, no disciplinary action is
pending against the petitioner and it is
merely on the basis of the pendency of
the criminal proceedings the petitioner is
being paid interim pension.

7. in my opinion, the aforesaid judgement
is fully applicable to the present case and
the petitioner is entitled for full pension.
However, since the recovery of Rs.
6841/- is being made on the basis of the
direction of the Accountant General,
(Lekha and Hakdari)-I, U.P., Allahabad,
respondent no. 2, I find that no reason
worth taking into consideration either
from the report or on the basis of the
argument advanced by the petitioner to
interfere in the recovery being made in
pursuant to the letter dated 18.10.2008.
The aforesaid amount is liable to be
adjusted
from
the
payment
made
henceforth to the petitioner.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1971 SC 1409; (1983) 1 SCC 305.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar
Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State authority.

2. The present petition has been filed
for challenging the order impugned dated
18.10.1988 whereby the recovery of Rs.
6841/- allegedly paid in excess to the
petitioner, was directed by the respondent
no. 2, Accountant General, (Lekha and
Hakdari)-I, U.P., Allahabad. A further
prayer to release entire difference of
arrears of pension, gratuity etc. including
various allowances has also been made by
the petitioner. .

3. During the course of argument
and on perusal of record, it transpires that
there was a criminal case pending against
the petitioner being Criminal Case No.
398 of 1995 wherein the petitioner was
also detained in jail from 31.10.1995 to
31.11.1995 and on this ground provisional
pension is being paid to the petitioner.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the respondents no. 3 to 5
wherein the grant of such provisional
pension during the pendency of the
criminal appeal was sought to be
supported. It was also stated in paragraph
4 of the counter affidavit that 90%
gratuity, GPF has already been paid to the
petitioner and for remaining 10% GPF
amount, a letter has already been written
to the respondent no. 2. Insofar as the
amount of Rs. 6841/- allegedly paid in
excess to the petitioner, it was submitted
that from the order under challenge,
passed by respondent no. 2, the amount is
clearly liable to be recovered from the
petitioner. It was further stated that the
altogether allowances like washing, food,
bonus etc. have already been paid to the
petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgement of this
Court in the case of Narendra Kumar
Singh vs. State of U.P. decided on
5.10.2013. In the aforesaid judgement
also the interim pension was being paid
on the ground that the criminal case is
pending against the petitioner. The
Division Bench of this Court relied upon
various decisions of the Apex Court held
that pendency of criminal case is no
ground for withholding the pension of the
employee and a direction to pay full
pension was made by the Court. It would
2 All]. Ram Nagina Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
911
be appropriate to abstract paragraph 7, 8,
9, 14 and 15, which is quoted below:

7. "We are of the view that on the
facts and circumstances, full pension can
not be denied.

In the case of Deoki Nandan Shan
Vs. State of U.P., reported in in AIR 1971
SC, 1409, the Apex Court ruled that the
pension is a right and payment of it does
not depend upon the discretion of the
Government but is governed by the Rules
and the Government servant coming
within those Rules is entitled to claim
pension and grant of pension does not
depend upon anyone's discretion. It is
only for the purpose of quantifying the
amount, having regard to service and
other allied matters, that it may be
necessary for the authority to pass an
order to that effrect but the right to
receive pension flows to the officer not
because of any such order but by virtue of
the rules. This view was further affirmed
by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh, reported in AIR
1976, SC, 667.

8. In the case of D.S.Nakara Vs.
Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC,
305, the Apex Court has observed as
under :

"From the discussion three things
emerge : (1) that pension is neither a
bounty nor a matter of grace depending
upon the sweet will of the employer and
that it creates a vested right subject to
1972 Rules which are statutory in
character because they are enacted in
exercise of powers conferred by the
proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of
Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that
the pension is not an ex gratia payment
but it is a payment for the past service
rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare
measure rendering socio-economic justice
to those who in the hey-day of their life
ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an
assurance that in their old age they would
not be left in lurch....."

9. The ratio laid down in these cases
had been subsequently followed by the
Apex Court in series of its decisions
including the case of Secretary, O.N.G.C.
Limited Vs. V.U.Warrier, reported in
2005 (5) SCC, 245.

14. We have also perused the
Government Order dated 28.10.1980,
annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit,
which
has
been
made
basis
for
withholding the part of the pension and
allowing
the
interim
pension.
This
Government Order provides the payment
of
interim
pension
where
the
departmental proceeding are pending.
None of the circular, Government Order
or any provision has been referred before
us, which provides that where no
departmental proceeding is pending, still
the pension can be withheld.

15. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed and mandamus is
being issued to the respondents to pay full
pension to the petitioner within a period
of two months from the date of
presentation of the certified copy of this
order. However, it will be open to the
department to proceed afresh after the
decision in the criminal case as observed
by the appellate authority while certifying
the
integrity
of
the
petitioner
in
accordance to law."

6. Admittedly, no disciplinary action
is pending against the petitioner and it is
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merely on the basis of the pendency of the
criminal proceedings the petitioner is
being paid interim pension.

7. In my opinion, the aforesaid
judgement is fully applicable to the present
case and the petitioner is entitled for full
pension. However, since the recovery of Rs.
6841/- is being made on the basis of the
direction of the Accountant General, (Lekha
and Hakdari)-I, U.P., Allahabad, respondent
no. 2, I find that no reason worth taking into
consideration either from the report or on the
basis of the argument advanced by the
petitioner to interfere in the recovery being
made in pursuant to the letter dated
18.10.2008. The aforesaid amount is liable to
be adjusted from the payment made
henceforth to the petitioner.

8. It is made clear that as left open
by the Division Bench of this Court in
Narendra Kumar Singh vs. State of
U.P.(supra), it will be open to department
to proceed afresh after decision in a
criminal case in case the department after
initiating the proceedings is satisfied that
the petitioner is liable for loss caused to
the department or for any misconduct if
proved in such proceedings.

9. It is expected that the respondent
will
proceed
with
the
matter,
as
expeditiously as possible strictly in
accordance with law, preferably within a
period of six months.

10. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69034 of 2009

Pankaj Kumar Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umakant, Sri Narendra Pratap Singh
Sri Rishu Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dharmendra Vaish, Sri S.S. Yadav,
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-14-Cancellation
of appointment-petitioner finally got
selected-on post of peon-cancellation on
ground
of
over-qualification-whether
justified-held-'No'.

Held: Para-20
I am not inclined to accept the argument
of learned counsel for the bank that the
petitioner had concealed material facts.
Further, this Court having already held
that condition regarding disqualification
for
possessing
higher
education,
is
violative of constitutional rights of the
petitioner under Article 14 and 16 cannot
be denied relief on any such technical
ground.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2000 SC 919; 2011(1) 115 (P & H)(FB);
AIR 2002 SC 1503; 1996 Law Suit (SC) 1321.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Higher education is considered to be
a golden wand to ameliorate poverty;
eradicate social backwardness by opening
new horizons for employment with enhanced
skill, social acceptability and intellectual well
being. But it is not always so, like in the
instant case, where higher education has
become a curse, a malediction, a stumbling
block, in snatching from the petitioner the
source
of
livelihood.