# S.N. F. Alloy Private Limited v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 307
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-03-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24138 of 2002
- **Bench:** R.K. Agrawal, Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-n-f-alloy-private-limited-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41617
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226-U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform
Rules, 1952-Rules 255 and 259-Recovery
of
10%
collection
charges-held
untenable, unsustainable-except Rs.3.75
no other amount can be charged against
collection charges.

Held: Para 6

In view of the case law as referred
above,
it
is
apparently
clear
that
collection charges at the rate of 10% is
wholly
unjustifiable
and
hence
the
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
respondents are directed not to insist
payment of collection charges more than
Rs.3.75 in respect of recovery of the
amount as claimed by them in the
demand notice which is annexure 4 to
the writ petition.
Case law discussed:
1998(2) AWC 1196, writ petition No. 4307 of

## Text

1 All] Allahabad Bank Staff Association and others V. Chairman and M.D. and others

307
respondent bank to the effect that there
has been no final consideration of the
application of the petitioner till the
issuance of scheme 2005.

9. In the opinion of the Court the
contention is totally misplaced. Under the
resolution of the Personnel Administrative
Department of the Bank as per its meeting
dated 09th October, 2004 the application
of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment was allowed and he was
directed to be offered compassionate
appointment. The application of the
petitioner stood finally disposed of and
what remained was the performance of
the ministerial act of issuance of the
appointment letter.

10. This Court therefore, holds that
both on the date the application was made
as well as on the date it was finally
considered
by
the
Personnel
Administrative Department of the Bank,
the scheme as was applicable provided for
compassionate
appointment.
The
enforcement of scheme dated 04.02.2005,
which has done away with compassionate
appointment, has no application qua the
case of the petitioner.

11. The writ petition is therefore
allowed. Respondent bank is directed to
take appropriate action for appointment of
the petitioner in terms of the decision of
the Personnel Administrative Department
of the Bank dated 09.10.2004, preferably
within six weeks from the date a certified
copy of this order is filed before the
authority concerned.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24138 of 2002

S.N. F. Alloy Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dinesh Dwivedi
Sri S. Ali Murtaza

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajay Bhanot
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226-U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform
Rules, 1952-Rules 255 and 259-Recovery
of
10%
collection
charges-held
untenable, unsustainable-except Rs.3.75
no other amount can be charged against
collection charges.

Held: Para 6

In view of the case law as referred
above,
it
is
apparently
clear
that
collection charges at the rate of 10% is
wholly
unjustifiable
and
hence
the
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
respondents are directed not to insist
payment of collection charges more than
Rs.3.75 in respect of recovery of the
amount as claimed by them in the
demand notice which is annexure 4 to
the writ petition.
Case law discussed:
1998(2) AWC 1196, writ petition No. 4307 of
1981.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayashree Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. By virtue of present writ petition
the petitioner is challenging the order of
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

recovery of the collection charges to the
tune of 10%. It is contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
recovery
certificate
was
issued
for
recovery
of
the
amount
due.
Subsequently,
vide
letter
dated
24.12.2001 the same recovery certificate
was requested to be returned immediately
for
consideration,
confirmation
and
verification of the account which is
Annexure 2 to the letter. Again recovery
certificate was issued for recovering the
amount mentioned in the alleged recovery
certificate which is annexure 3 to the writ
petition. By virtue of annexure 4 a
demand notice was sent for recovery of
collection charges upto the tune of 10% of
the amount sought to be recovered.

3. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the first
recovery citation was suo moto called
back by the issuing authority and
subsequently another recovery citation
was issued. Infact, no proceedings in
pursuance of the recovery certificates
were started or commenced which may
cause an occasion for enhanced demand
for collection charges. He submitted that
he is mainly aggrieved on the point of
demand of collection charges @10% and
submitted that such demand can not
exceed beyond the rate of Rs.3.75 and
demand in excess is wholly unsustainable.

4. Learned Standing counsel for the
State conceded the facts and situations
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding the processing of the
recovery certificate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to a case law reported in 1998(2)
AWC 1196 Asha Textiles (P) Ltd. &
another vs. State of U.P. & others
wherein it has been held that U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952- Rules 255 and 259-
Recovery as Arrears of Land Revenue -
Collection Charges- Recoverable at rate
of Rs.3.75 and not more- Demand in
excess thereof - wholly unsustainable. In
the same Division Bench ruling the
decision given in Civil Misc. writ petition
No. 4307 of 1981 M/s. Chemopulp
Tissues Limited Vs. State of U.P. and
others has been referred as such that the
collection charges can be recovered at the
rate of Rs.3.75 only and not more than
that. It was held in the aforesaid case
referred above that recovery charges can
not exceed more than Rs.3.75 and the
demand of the respondents in excess
thereof is wholly untenable.

6. In view of the case law as referred
above, it is apparently clear that collection
charges at the rate of 10% is wholly
unjustifiable and hence the petition
succeeds and is allowed. The respondents
are directed not to insist payment of
collection charges more than Rs.3.75 in
respect of recovery of the amount as
claimed by them in the demand notice
which is annexure 4 to the writ petition.

7. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25871 of 2009

Pancham Giri

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents