# Smt. Pinki Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 577
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-12
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 5335 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pinki-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49976
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Inquiry
-
Loss,
misappropriation and misuse of funds -
Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947:
Section 27(2); Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947:
Rules 256 and 257.

Jurisdiction - A perusal of Section 27 of
the Act of 1947 r/w Rule 256 of the Rules
of 1947 clearly shows that surcharge was
leviable
on
an
enquiry
which
was
conducted by the Chief Audit Officer and
which had to be forwarded to the District
Magistrate in the case of Pradhan, UpPradhan and Members of Gram Panchayat
and to the District Panchayat Raj Officer
in the cases of officers and servants of the
Gaon Sabha. (Para 9)

Therefore, it was the Chief Audit Officer of the
Cooperative Societies and Panchayat who was
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the officer authorized to conduct the enquiry for
the purposes of the imposition of surcharge. If
the enquiry was not conducted by the
Chief Audit Officer then the enquiry as had
been done in this case by the Deputy
Director (Agriculture) Basti, was without
jurisdiction.
When
there
was
no
Prescribed Authority as has been referred
to in Section 27(2) of the Panchayat Raj
Act then the District Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to impose the surcharge. (Para
10, 12)

It is undisputed fact that the inquiry as
conducted which initiated the entire proceedings
against the petitioner whereupon the District
Magistrate (respondent no. 3) relied upon and
the entire determination has been fastened
against the petitioner has been conducted by
the authorities other than the Chief Audit Officer
or by the District Audit Officers, and as such,
the respondent no. 3 exceeded its jurisdiction
specifically
w.r.t.
determining
the
liability
against the petitioner. (Para 18)

It is apparent from the order which impugned
the present petition that in spite of taking the
specific grounds at the time of preferring the
Appeal before the Commissioner Basti, Region
Basti (respondent no. 2) there is hardly any
discussion available w.r.t. the competency of
the respondent no. 3 while determining the loss
which has been attributed to the petitioner and
as such, the same is liable to be set aside. (Para
19)

The instant matter is hereby decided without
calling
the
counter
affidavit
from
the
respondents since the action of the responding
authorities are contrary to the settled provisions
of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 which have
been broadly discussed in the judgment dated
16.12.2022 passed in Writ C No. 28230 of 2022
(Dinesh Kumar And 4 Others versus St. of U.P.
And 3 Others). (Para 20)

Orders dated 29.08.2022 and 06.03.2023
passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 2
respectively is hereby quashed and set aside.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

4 All. Smt. Pinki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
577
an event the rule of reservation to the
extent of 21% in both the sources can be
conveniently
made
applicable
without
disturbing the ratio in either of the
sources."

14. On perusal of the Full Bench
judgment, it is evidently clear that
reservation quota of Scheduled Castes is
not applicable against three vacancies
available in the institution and in case it is
permitted, it will exceed 21% quota of
reservation.

15. The argument advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner has merit
and the writ petition deserves to be
allowed, however, the arguments advanced
by learned counsel for the respondents that
the quota of reservation will apply against
six available vacancies is erroneous in
nature under Rule 10 of Rules of 1998. In
the case in hand, 50% posts are to be filled
up by way of direct recruitment and 50%
posts shall be filled up by grant of
promotion.

16. In view of the fact that there are
six posts, three posts comes under direct
recruitment quota and three posts comes
under promotional quota. The quota of
reservation shall apply separately to direct
recruitment as well as to promotional
quota. There is promotional quota against
three posts only, therefore, roster for
reservation of Scheduled Castes will not be
made applicable.

17. In view of the reasons recorded
above, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

18. The impugned orders dated
25.06.2007 and 05.07.2007 are hereby set
aside.

19. The respondents are directed to
pay
salary
to
the
petitioner
w.e.f.
19.12.2006 till date within a period of one
month from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. Consequential
benefits shall also be provided to the
petitioner.

20. Parties shall bear their own costs.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 577
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 5335 of 2023

Smt. Pinki Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sheikh Mozzam Inam, Sri S.C. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Inquiry
-
Loss,
misappropriation and misuse of funds -
Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947:
Section 27(2); Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947:
Rules 256 and 257.

Jurisdiction - A perusal of Section 27 of
the Act of 1947 r/w Rule 256 of the Rules
of 1947 clearly shows that surcharge was
leviable
on
an
enquiry
which
was
conducted by the Chief Audit Officer and
which had to be forwarded to the District
Magistrate in the case of Pradhan, UpPradhan and Members of Gram Panchayat
and to the District Panchayat Raj Officer
in the cases of officers and servants of the
Gaon Sabha. (Para 9)

Therefore, it was the Chief Audit Officer of the
Cooperative Societies and Panchayat who was
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the officer authorized to conduct the enquiry for
the purposes of the imposition of surcharge. If
the enquiry was not conducted by the
Chief Audit Officer then the enquiry as had
been done in this case by the Deputy
Director (Agriculture) Basti, was without
jurisdiction.
When
there
was
no
Prescribed Authority as has been referred
to in Section 27(2) of the Panchayat Raj
Act then the District Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to impose the surcharge. (Para
10, 12)

It is undisputed fact that the inquiry as
conducted which initiated the entire proceedings
against the petitioner whereupon the District
Magistrate (respondent no. 3) relied upon and
the entire determination has been fastened
against the petitioner has been conducted by
the authorities other than the Chief Audit Officer
or by the District Audit Officers, and as such,
the respondent no. 3 exceeded its jurisdiction
specifically
w.r.t.
determining
the
liability
against the petitioner. (Para 18)

It is apparent from the order which impugned
the present petition that in spite of taking the
specific grounds at the time of preferring the
Appeal before the Commissioner Basti, Region
Basti (respondent no. 2) there is hardly any
discussion available w.r.t. the competency of
the respondent no. 3 while determining the loss
which has been attributed to the petitioner and
as such, the same is liable to be set aside. (Para
19)

The instant matter is hereby decided without
calling
the
counter
affidavit
from
the
respondents since the action of the responding
authorities are contrary to the settled provisions
of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 which have
been broadly discussed in the judgment dated
16.12.2022 passed in Writ C No. 28230 of 2022
(Dinesh Kumar And 4 Others versus St. of U.P.
And 3 Others). (Para 20)

Orders dated 29.08.2022 and 06.03.2023
passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 2
respectively is hereby quashed and set aside.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
1. Smt. Shyam Wati Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2013
(6) AWC 6339 (Para 12)

2. Uday Pratap Singh @ Harikesh Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., 2019 (10) ADJ 443 (Para 12)

3. Ram Vilas Vs Commissioner Devi Patan
Mandal Gonda & ors., 2022 (1) ADJ 1 (Para 15)

4. Dinesh Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-C No. 28230 of 2022 (Para 16)

Present petition challenges order dated
29.08.2022 passed by respondent no. 3
(District Magistrate, Basti) as well as
order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the
respondent no. 2 (Commissioner Basti,
Region Basti).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.C. Dwivedi assisted
by Shri Sheikh Moazzam Inam, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Shri
Satyendra
Kumar
Tripathi,
learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 29.08.2022 passed by respondent no.
3 as well as order dated 06.03.2023 passed
by the respondent no. 2.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding/directing the respondent no. 3
not to take any action in pursuance of the
impugned orders."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
inquiry has been conducted with regard to
certain loss, misappropriation and misuse
of the funds which has to be utilized for the
public cause under the supervision of Gram
Vikas
Adhikari,
Block
Bahadurpur,
4 All. Smt. Pinki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
579
District-Basti and the petitioner was
rendering her services over the same post.

4. The said inquiry has been
conducted by the Committee comprises of
District Horticulture Officer, Tehsildar,
Sadar,
District
Basti
and
Assistant
Engineer, D.R.D.A. for ascertaining the
fact which is specifically with regard to the
irregularities while performing the public
work under the supervision of the petitioner
as well as Gram Pradhan of the concerned
Village.

5. On the basis of inquiry report as
submitted by the Inquiry Committee, the
District Magistrate i.e. respondent no. 3,
determined the loss of Rs. 3,52,083/- and
the same has been fastened in equal
proportion to be recovered from the
petitioner, Ex-Gram Pradhan along with
Assistant Engineer, Bahadurpur, DistrictBasti vide order dated 29.08.2022.

6. Having being aggrieved by the
order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the
respondent no. 3, the petitioner challenged
the same before the respondent no. 2 who
has been designated as Appellate Authority
in pursuance to the judgment and order
dated 06.12.2022 and as such, the same has
been adjudicated by the respondent no. 2
under
the
strict
compliance
of
the
directions passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 18959 of 2022 (Smt. Pinki
Devi versus State of U.P. and Others).

7. While preferring the Appeal before
the respondent no. 2, the specific stand
taken up by the petitioner regarding the
competency of the Committee constituted
by the District Magistrate for Enquiry as
well as the respondent no. 3 being the
District Magistrate which is contrary to the
Section 27(2) wherein the prescribed
authority who is competent to fix the
amount of the surcharge according to the
procedure has been defined only in the case
where the responsibility is fastened against
the Pradhan or other member of the Gram
Panchayat or Joint Committee or any other
Committee constituted under this Act and
as such, being the Village Development
Officer/Village Secretary, the respondent
no. 3 proceeded against the petitioner under
the statutory provisions as defined under
the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act,
1947, for better appreciation of legal issues
defined under Section 27 of the Act of
1947 and the Rules 256 and 257 of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules of 1947") the same
are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"27. Surcharge. - (1) Every Pradhan
or [ ***] of a [ Gram Panchayat], every
member of a [Gram Panchayat] or of a
Joint Committee or any other committee
constituted under this Act [shall be liable to
surcharge
for
the
loss,
waste
or
misapplication of money or property
belonging to the Gram Panchayat, if such
loss, waste or misapplication is direct
consequence of his neglect or misconduct
while he was such Pradhan or Member].

Provided that such liability shall cease
to exist after the expiration of ten years
from the occurrence of such loss, waste or
misapplication, or five years from the date
on which the person liable ceases to hold
his office, whichever is later.

(2) The prescribed authority shall fix
the amount of the surcharge according to
the procedure that may be prescribed and
shall certify the amount to the Collector
who shall, on being satisfied that the
amount is due, realise it as if it were an
arrear of land revenue.

(3) Any person aggrieved by the order
of the prescribed authority fixing the
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of surcharge may, within thirty
days of such order, appeal against the
order of the State Government or such
other appellate authority as may be
prescribed.
(4) Where no proceeding for fixation and
realization of surcharge as specified in
sub-section
(2)
is
taken
the
State
Government
may
institute
suit
for
compensation for such loss, waste or
misapplication, against the person liable
for the same."

CHAPTER XIII

SURCHARGE RULES

"256. (1) In any case where the Chief
Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies and
Panchayats, considers that there has been
a loss, waste or misuse of any money or
other property belonging to a Gaon Sabha
as a direct consequence of the negligence
or misconduct of a Pradhan, he may call
upon the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member,
Officer or servant should not be required to
pay the amount misused or the amount
which represents the loss or waste caused
to the Gaon Sabha or to its property and
such explanation shall be furnished within
a period not exceeding two months from the
date such requisition is communicated to
the person concerned.

Provided that an explanation from the
Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of the
Gaon Panchayat shall be called for
through the District Magistrate and from
the
officer
or
servant
through
the
Panchayat Raj Officer:

Provided also that no explanation
shall be called for from any member who is
recorded in the minutes of the Gaon
Panchayats or any of its committee as
having been absent from the meeting at
which the expenditure objected to was
sanctioned or who voted against such
expenditure.

Note. - Any information required by
the Chief Audit Officer, Co-operative
Societies and Panchayats or any officer
subordinate to him not below the rank of
auditor,
Panchayats
for
preliminary
enquiry, shall be furnished and shall be
connected papers and records shall be
shown to him by the Pradhan immediately
on demand.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality or
the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) the
Chief Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies
and
Panchayats,
may
call
for
the
explanation in the following cases:

(a) where expenditure has been
incurred in contravention of the provisions
of the Act or of the rules or regulations
made thereunder;

(b) where loss has been caused to the
Gaon Sabha by acceptance of a higher
tender without sufficient reasons in writing;

(c) where any sum due to the Gaon
Sabha has been remitted in contravention
of the provisions of the Act or the rules or
regulations made thereunder;

(d) where the loss has been caused to
the funds or other property of the Gaon
Sabha on account of want of reasonable
care for the custody of such money or
property.

(3) On the written request of the
Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member, Officer or
servant from who an explanation has been
called for, the Gaon Panchayat shall give
his necessary facilities for inspection of the
records connected with the requisition for
surcharge. The Chief Audit Officer may, on
application from the person surcharged
allow a reasonable extension of time for
submission of his explanation if he is
satisfied that the person charged has been
unable, for reasons, beyond his control, to
4 All. Smt. Pinki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
consult the record for the purpose of
furnishing his explanation.

Explanation.
-
Making
of
an
appointment in contravention of the Act,
the
rules
or
the
regulations,
made
thereunder shall amount to misconduct or
negligence and payments to employees of
salaries and other dues on account of such
irregular appointments shall be deemed to
be a loss, waste or misuse of Gaon Fund.

257.(1) After the expiry of the period
prescribed in sub-rule (1) or (3) of Rule
256, as the case may be, and after
examining the explanation, if any, received
within time, the Chief Audit Officer shall
submit
the
papers
along
with
his
recommendations to the District Magistrate
of the district in which the Gaon Sabha is
situated in case of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan
and Members and to the District Panchayat
Raj Officer of the district in which the
Gaon Sabha is situated in case of officers
and servants.
(2) The District Magistrate or the District
Panchayat Raj Officer as the case may be,
after examining and after considering the
explanation, if any, shall require the
Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member, Officer or
servant of the Gaon Panchayat to pay the
whole or part of the sum to which such
Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member, Officer or
servant is found liable:

Provided, firstly, that no Pradhan, UpPradhan, Member, Officer or servant of a
Gaon Panchayat would be required to
make good the loss, if from the explanation
of the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member,
Officer or servant concerned or otherwise
the District Magistrate of the District
Panchayat Raj Officer, as the case may be,
is satisfied that the loss was caused by an
act of the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member,
Officer or servant in the bona fide
discharge of his duties.

Provided, secondly, that in case of
loss, waste or misuse occurring as a result
of a resolution of the Gaon Panchayat or
any of its committees the amount of loss to
be recovered shall be divided equally
among all the members including Pradhan
and Up-Pradhan, who are reported in the
minutes of the Gaon Panchayat or any of
its committee as having voted for or who
remained neutral in respect of such
resolution:

Provided, thirdly, that no Pradhan,
Up-Pradhan, Member, Officer or servant
shall be liable for any loss, waste or misuse
after the expiry of four years from the
occurrence of such loss, waste or misuse or
after the expiry of three years from the date
of his ceasing to be a Pradhan, UpPradhan, Member, Officer or servant of the
Gaon Panchayat whichever is later."

8. After considering the grounds as
taken up by the petitioner in the memo of
Appeal presented before the respondent no.
2
for
challenging
the
order
dated
29.08.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3
the vital submission in shape of legal issues
has
never
ever
been
discussed
or
determined by the Appellate Authority who
was exercising power under the orders
passed by Coordinate Bench in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 18959 of 2022 (Smt.
Pinki Devi versus State of U.P. and
Others).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that a perusal of Section 27 of
the Act of 1947 read with Rule 256 of the
Rules of 1947 clearly shows that surcharge
was leviable on an enquiry which was
conducted by the Chief Audit Officer and
which had to be forwarded to the District
Magistrate in the case of Pradhan, UpPradhan and Members of Gram Panchayat
and to the District Panchayat Raj Officer in
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the cases of officers and servants of the
Gaon Sabha.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, therefore, submitted that it was
the Chief Audit Officer of the Cooperative
Societies and Panchayat who was the
officer authorized to conduct the enquiry
for the purposes of the imposition of
surcharge.

11. He further submitted that after the
report was submitted to the District
Magistrate, the order ought to have been
passed by the Competent Authority and the
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submitted that since there was yet no
competent authority appointed, the order of
the District Magistrate was also beyond
jurisdiction.

12. To bolster his argument, learned
counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
judgement of this Court in Smt. Shyam
Wati vs. State of U.P and others reported
in 2013 (6) AWC 6339. This judgement
was cited to show that if the enquiry was
not conducted by the Chief Audit Officer
then the enquiry as had been done in this
case by the Deputy Director (Agriculture)
Basti, was without jurisdiction. He further
submitted
that
when
there
was
no
Prescribed Authority as has been referred
to in Section 27(2) of the Panchayat Raj
Act then the District Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to impose the surcharge. For
this purpose, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon Uday Pratap Singh
@ Harikesh vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2019 (10) ADJ 443.

13. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as
made in the petition and supported the
order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the
respondent no. 2 by way of raising his
argument that the prescribed authority as
defined under the Act of 1947 is not
defined, but the same has been answered in
the verdict pronounced by this Hon'ble
Court.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while making the submissions very fairly
conceded that as far as the jurisdiction with
the Deputy Director (Agriculture), Basti,
was concerned, it was only the Chief Audit
Officer who was authorized to conduct the
enquiry. He, however, submitted and also
placed a written submission that now when
the Panchayat had attained constitutional
status and as per Article 243, 243(A) to
243(O) of the Constitution of India there
were provisions in the Constitution to
provide for a three tier Panchayat system
such as the Village Panchayat, Kshetra
Panchayat and the District Panchayat
instead of the Chief Audit Officer, some
more powerful body should be brought into
existence. He submitted that further since
as per Article 243(I) of the Constitution, a
Finance
Commission
to
review
the
financial position of Panchayats had been
formed, on which there was the duty to
enquire into the financial deals of the
Panchayat then the finances of a gram
panchayat should be monitored by a much
more powerful body. While making his
submissions, he also submitted that under
Article 243 (G), there were various powers,
authorities and responsibilities bestowed
upon the Panchayat, so much so that under
Article 243 (H) even powers to impose
taxes had been given to the panchayats. He
submits that though various amendments
had been made in the Panchayat Raj Act,
the provision for enquiry for the purposes
of surcharge had remained only with the
Chief Audit Officer. He submits that the
various
Panchayat
work
had
to
be
4 All. Smt. Pinki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
583
supervised and had to be audited and there
were times that even before the audit could
take place after the completion of work, the
responsibilities had to be fixed for the
works which had commenced and which
were not being done properly.

15. Learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents however, submitted that so far
as the jurisdiction under Section 27(2) of
the 1947 Act for imposing the surcharge
with the District Magistrate had been
questioned, the question was no longer res
intergra as now a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Ram Vilas vs.
Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda
and others reported in 2022 (1) ADJ 1 had
decided that the District Magistrate could
impose the surcharge.

16. For substantiating the arguments
as raised above, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment and
order dated 16.12.2022 passed in Writ C
No. 28230 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar And 4
Others versus State of U.P. And 3 Others),
wherein it is crystal clearly defined and
discussed while arriving over the issue with
regard to the competency of the District
Magistrate to specifically proceed against
the officer or servant as prescribed under
the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947.

17. The operative portion of the
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, there is not an iota of doubt
that the enquiry which was conducted by
the Deputy Director (Agriculture), Basti,
was an enquiry which was without
jurisdiction. In fact, as per Rules 256 and
257 of the 1947 Rules, the enquiry ought to
have been conducted by the Chief Audit
Officer and now as per the order of
delegation made by the Chief Audit Officer
by the District Audit Officers.

Under
such
circumstances,
the
impugned order dated 29.8.2022 passed by
the District Magistrate, Basti, is quashed
and is set aside.

However, the Court suggests that the
Law Commission may take up the matter
and as per the conditions prevailing now
i.e. as per the various powers which have
been bestowed upon the Panchayats after
the amendment of the Constitution of India
by the 73rd Amendment by which Articles
243(A) to 243 (O) have been added in the
Constitution of India and the Panchayats
have attained constitutional status, a body
which has powers to supervise the working
of the Pradhans and its officials should be
constituted
for
monitoring
of
the
Panchayats and for supervising the work
which is being done by them.

For the reasons stated above, the writ
petition stands allowed.

A copy of this order be sent by the
Registrar General of this Court to the State
Law Commission."

18. It is undisputed fact that the
inquiry as conducted which initiated the
entire proceedings against the petitioner
whereupon the respondent no. 3 relied upon
and the entire determination has been
fastened against the petitioner has been
conducted by the authorities other than the
Chief Audit Officer or by the District Audit
Officers, and as such, the respondent no. 3
exceeded its jurisdiction specifically with
regard to determining the liability against
the petitioner.

19. It is apparent from the order
which impugned the present petition that
inspite of taking the specific grounds at the
time of preferring the Appeal before the
respondent no. 2 there is hardly any
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discussion available with regard to the
competency of the respondent no. 3 while
determining the loss which has been
attributed to the petitioner and as such, the
same is liable to be set aside.

20. The instant matter is hereby
decided
without
calling
the
counter
affidavit from the respondents since the
action of the responding authorities are
contrary to the settled provisions of the
U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 which has
been broadly discussed in the judgment
dated 16.12.2022 passed in Writ C No.
28230 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar And 4
Others versus State of U.P. And 3 Others)
and after footing the action of the
respondents in the litmus of the judgment
as mentioned above, the same seems to be
illegal.

21. In the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, the orders dated 29.08.2022
and 06.03.2023 passed by the respondent
nos. 3 and 2 respectively is hereby quashed
and set aside.

22. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 584
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 6585 of 2021

Divakar Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri Adarsh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - House Rent Allowance -
A judicial officer who is not provided
residential accommodation is obliged to
go in for rented accommodation. In view
of the prevailing rate of rent, the smallest
accommodation that can be taken may
often cost 75 per cent to 100 per cent of
the monthly salary, a situation which
cannot be countenanced by any logic. It is
absolutely
necessary
that
appropriate
conditions should be provided for the
judicial
officer
and
he
should
have
reasonable mental peace in order that he
may perform his duties satisfactorily.
Rendering justice is a difficult job. It is actually a
divine act. Unless the judicial officer has a
reasonably worry free mental condition, it would
be difficult to expect unsoiled justice from his
hands. (Para 16)

Provision of an official residence for every
Judicial
Officer
should
be
made
mandatory. A Judicial Officer to work in a
manner expected of him has to free himself
from undue obligations of others, particularly
owners of buildings within his jurisdiction who
ordinarily may have litigation before him. This is
mostly the case in rural areas where outstation
judicial courts are located. (Para 16)

Supreme
Court
has
directed
that
until
adequate government accommodation is
available, it should be the obligation of the
State at the instance of the High Court to
provide
requisite
accommodation
for
every judicial officer. (Para 17)

B. As per GO dated 27 July 2006, in case of
non-availability
of
government
accommodation, the concerned judicial
officer may himself/herself arrange for an
accommodation on rent, in accordance
with law, stature/class of the post held by
him/her. The difference of money beyond
the prescribed H.R.A. shall be borne by the
State Government. It is further stated that
issuance of Rent Justification Certificate is for