# Rohit Kumar Sharma & Ors v. The Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1183
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-06
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 10910 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-kumar-sharma-ors-v-the-union-of-india-ors-47365
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment - Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
Commission Act, 2014 - Sections 15, 17 &
18(2); Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment
To Group 'C' Posts (Mode And Procedure)
Rules, 2015 - Rule 5, 7 & 8; Guidelines
adopted by the Commission in exercise of
powers under Section 15 - Guideline 16,
22, 23, 24.

The withheld result is not a separate
exercise undertaken by the Commission

## Text

9 All Rohit Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
1183
(2021)09ILR A1183
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBASH CHAND, J.

WRIT A No. 10910 of 2021

Rohit Kumar Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Yadav, Sri Radha Kant Ojha
(Senior Adv)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vivek Kumar Rai

A. Service Law - Salary - The impugned
order dated 11.08.2020 is in fact a
notice and not an order of recovery as
understood by the employees and the
tribunal.
The
impugned
orders
dated
11.8.2020 and 25.8.2020 will be considered
to be notices and salary shall not be
deducted without hearing the parties. The
respondents shall not re-fix the pay-scale of
the
petitioners
till
representations
are
decided and matter is considered on merits.
(Para 3, 4)

Writ petition disposed off. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Ramesh Chandra Raikwar & 14 ors. Vs
Central Administrative Tribunal & 3 ors.,
Writ- A No. 6083 of 2021, (Para 7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr.. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Subash Chand, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. In the morning, we have been
conveyed by Shri Vivek Kumar Rai,
learned counsel
for respondents that
Central Administrative Tribunal order
rather judgment is under challenge and
petitioners are directed to approach the
authorities as per the impugned order and
have also directed him to seek instructions
as we are convinced that the issue can be
resolved by the present petitioner who are
before this Court to approach

3. From the authorities concerned that
the impugned order dated 11.8.2020 as
indicated is fact in notice though it is
understood by employees and the tribunal
order of recovery. We, at this juncture,
substitute
the
order
of
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad
Branch, Allahabad dated 2nd March, 2021
that this writ petition would be considered
by
the
authorities
concerned
as
a
reply/representation quo. The order/notice
dated 11.8.2020 and 25.8.2020, the copy of
which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ
petition.

4. We are not going into the factual
matrix nor discussing the details but we are
pained
to
note
that
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal have gone much
beyond the scope and, therefore, we are
required to set aside all the reasoning given
by it more particularly in paras '26'-'131'.
The tribunal had directed the petitioners to
approach the authorities and observed
against the petitioners which has made
them approach this Court. The order dated
23.2.2021 is quashed. The impugned orders
dated 11.8.2020 and 25.8.2020 will be
considered to be noticed and not deduction
of salary without hearing the parties. There
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be any deductions, The tribunal
could have simply remanded the matter as
the Loco-pilot who were before it were
already relegated to the concerned authority
by its order. The respondents shall not refix the pay scale of the petitioners till
decide
the
representations
and
also
considered the matter on merits.

5. May that as it may be as a model
Government, the respondent No.1, Union
of India through the General Manager,
North Central Railway will direct the
respondent No.2, Divisional Railway
Manager, North Central Railway, JhansiU.P. will in term directed respondent
No.3,
Divisional
Railway
Manager
(Personnel),
North
Central
Railway
Manager,
Jhansi
to
look
into
the
grievance of the petitioners herein and till
they decide the representation, if it is
shown that there was not fraud committed
cannot be deducted. May that as it may
be, we substitute the tribunals order by
this order.

6. This petition and O.A. will be
considered to be reply of the petitioners
and other affected parties may also file
their representations within four weeks
from
today.
The
petitioners
may
supplement the same also with additional
material if they so chose.

7. The judgment in WRIT - A No. -
6083
of
2021,
Ramesh
Chandra
Raikwar And 14 Others v. Central
Administrative Tribunal And 3 Others
is not countenanced at present by us
practical view and, therefore, we do not
place reliance on the same. There are
factual data also which are different from
the judgment of Ramesh Chandra (Supra)
for which we are not delving at the
present.

8. We hope that the authorities
concerned will go through the judicial
pronouncements of the Apex Court
regarding recovery from salary.

9. With these observations, this
petition is disposed of.

10. We are thankful to counsels for
ably assisting us and in case of difficulty,
the parties to seek revival of this petition
----------
(2021)09ILR A1184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

WRIT A No. 12102 of 2020
With
WRIT A No. 6940 of 2021

Robins Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sriprakash Rai, Sri Mujib Ahmad
Siddiqui, Sri Rishi Kant Rai, Sri K.S.
Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Siddharth Singhal

A. Service Law - Appointment - Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
Commission Act, 2014 - Sections 15, 17 &
18(2); Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment
To Group 'C' Posts (Mode And Procedure)
Rules, 2015 - Rule 5, 7 & 8; Guidelines
adopted by the Commission in exercise of
powers under Section 15 - Guideline 16,
22, 23, 24.

The withheld result is not a separate
exercise undertaken by the Commission