# State of U.P. & Ors v. Devesh Kumar Ojha & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-10-30
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 1040 of 2014
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Mrs Vijay Lakshmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-devesh-kumar-ojha-anr-43272
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri A.C. Mishra.
Uttar Pradesh Chhatrvitti Yojna Niyamawali,
2012-claim of reimbursement-denied saying
admission against paying seat-while it was
against free seat-due to negligence of
college functioning-wrong feeding can not
be basis for denial-admittedly, monthly
income less than 30,000/-held-Single Judge
rightly-exercised its writ jurisdiction-appeal
dismissed.
Held: Para-6
After hearing learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the aforesaid
finding of the Writ Court we are of the
considered opinion that under the Uttar
Pradesh
Samanya
Varg
Dashmottar
1 All]
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Devesh Kumar Ojha & Anr.
181
Chhatrivitti Yojna Niyamawali, 2012' it is
the
State
which
is
to
pay
the
reimbursement of the scholarship fee.
Admittedly, no fraud has been played by the
petitioner (respondent no.1 in the present
appeal)
and
he
has
been
denied
reimbursement to which he is otherwise
entitled to, only on the ground that there
has been a mistake in uploading of his
particulars by the Institution which is an
agency acting on behalf and in connection
of the work of the State for the success of
the scheme and so it cannot be made
responsible for reimbursement of fee,
payment of which is primary duty of the
State. Therefore, the order dated 3rd
December, 2013 of the Joint Direction of
Education directing the respondent no.3
Institution to compensate the petitioner
monetarily out of its own fund, as the
mistake in uploading was of the institution,
cannot be sustained. This order would
rather be against the spirit of the claim
itself which provides for economic help
provided by the State to candidates eligible
under the scheme whose family earning is
less than Rs.30,000/- per annum.

## Text

180
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned single Judge while proceeding to
reject the restoration application. We,
therefore, find sufficient grounds that
were available and were justified for
restoring the case after condoning the
delay.
8. We, accordingly, do so and set
aside the order dated 30.10.2014 whereby
the restoration application has been
rejected.
9. We also, accordingly, condone
the delay and treat the application within
time. We further find from the reasons
disclosed in the restoration application
that the situation was beyond the control
of the appellant and, therefore, the writ
petition ought to have been restored to it's
original number. We, therefore, set aside
the order dated 15.4.2009 and restore the
writ petition to it's original number.
10.

Having
considered
the
submissions so raised on the facts of the
present appeal, it is evident that the
appellant is 59 years of age and, therefore,
no useful purpose would be served in
remitting the matter back to the learned
single Judge and, therefore, with the
consent of the parties, we are disposing of
the writ petition alongwith this appeal
finally ourselves.
11.
The order of dispensation and
cancellation of appointment of the petitioner
does not appear to have been passed after
giving any notice or opportunity to the
appellant. The same is clearly in violation of
the principles of natural justice and, therefore,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Apart from this, the appellant is a petty
class-IV employee, who, in the aforesaid
background, does not deserve to be non-suited
now at the fag end of the career.
12.
We, therefore, in exercise of our
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and in view of
the reasons aforesaid, set aside the order
dated 30.4.1991 and allow the writ petition.
This discretion is being exercised on the
peculiar facts of this case as noted above. We
direct the respondents to treat the appellant to
continue
in
service
and
extend
all
consequential benefits to the appellant in
accordance with law.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.01.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 1040 of
2014
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Appellants
Versus
Devesh Kumar Ojha & Anr. .Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.C. Mishra.
Uttar Pradesh Chhatrvitti Yojna Niyamawali,
2012-claim of reimbursement-denied saying
admission against paying seat-while it was
against free seat-due to negligence of
college functioning-wrong feeding can not
be basis for denial-admittedly, monthly
income less than 30,000/-held-Single Judge
rightly-exercised its writ jurisdiction-appeal
dismissed.
Held: Para-6
After hearing learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the aforesaid
finding of the Writ Court we are of the
considered opinion that under the Uttar
Pradesh
Samanya
Varg
Dashmottar
1 All]
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Devesh Kumar Ojha & Anr.
181
Chhatrivitti Yojna Niyamawali, 2012' it is
the
State
which
is
to
pay
the
reimbursement of the scholarship fee.
Admittedly, no fraud has been played by the
petitioner (respondent no.1 in the present
appeal)
and
he
has
been
denied
reimbursement to which he is otherwise
entitled to, only on the ground that there
has been a mistake in uploading of his
particulars by the Institution which is an
agency acting on behalf and in connection
of the work of the State for the success of
the scheme and so it cannot be made
responsible for reimbursement of fee,
payment of which is primary duty of the
State. Therefore, the order dated 3rd
December, 2013 of the Joint Direction of
Education directing the respondent no.3
Institution to compensate the petitioner
monetarily out of its own fund, as the
mistake in uploading was of the institution,
cannot be sustained. This order would
rather be against the spirit of the claim
itself which provides for economic help
provided by the State to candidates eligible
under the scheme whose family earning is
less than Rs.30,000/- per annum.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)
1. The petitioner (respondent no.1 of
this appeal) had filed writ petition seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents
to
grant
scholarship/fee
reimbursement amount of Rs.80,900/- in
Account No.10686663349 of respondent
Devesh Kumar Ojha in State Bank of
India, Sirsa Branch, for the Session 201213.
2. It appears that respondent no.1
was a student of B. Tech. in Electrical and
Electronics Trade in the Session 2012-13.
He was entitled for fee reimbusement
under
the
scheme
of
the
State
Government known as 'Uttar Pradesh
Samanya Varg Dashmottar Chhatrivitti
Yojna Niyamawali, 2012' as his father
was having income less than Rs.30,000/-
per annum. This application for fee
reimbursement was not accepted by the
State Authorities on the ground that he
has been granted admission on a paid seat
and not on a free seat.
3. Subsequently it transpired that the
admission of the petitioner was against a
free seat by respondent no.3 but the
Institution while uploading the details had
incorrectly shown him to be admitted
against a paid seat. The State Authorities
found that if correct description of the
petitioner had been uploaded by the
institution, then the respondent Devesh
Kumar Ojha was entitiled to payment of
fee reimbursement. Therefore, the Joint
Director of Education vide order dated
3rd December 2013 directed respondent
no.3 the Institution, to compensate the
petitioner monetarily out of its own fund,
as the fault was of the institution, as a
result of which the petitioner has been
denied fee reimbursement.
4. After exchange of the affidavits
the Court in para 6 and 7 recorded finding
that the scholarship/fee reimbursement is
actually awarded by the State through the
department concerned, on the basis of
information uploaded by the institution
imparting education, which is a agency of
the government for gathering information
as appeared from the provisions of the
scheme itself. Therefore, in this view of
the matter it issued a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to reimburse
a sum of Rs.80,900/- due to the petitioner.
5. Standing Counsel on behalf of
appellant-State has submitted that since
the
Institution
uploaded
wrong
information
about
respondent
no.1,
therefore, State is not liable to pay the
scholarship/fee reimbursement and the
182
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order of the Joint Director of Education
dated 3rd December 2013 directing
respondent no.3 to compensate the
petitioner out of its own fund is just and
proper. Per contra the counsel for the
respondent submits that the Writ Court,
on basis of record and perusal of the
scheme has rightly come to the conclusion
that the Institution is actually an agency
of the State and, therefore, in the facts that
mistake has occurred by the Institution it
is the State which has to pay the
scholarship/fee reimbursement under the
scheme.
6. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of the aforesaid
finding of the Writ Court we are of the
considered opinion that under the Uttar
Pradesh
Samanya
Varg
Dashmottar
Chhatrivitti Yojna Niyamawali, 2012' it is
the
State
which
is
to
pay
the
reimbursement of the scholarship fee.
Admittedly, no fraud has been played by
the petitioner (respondent no.1 in the
present appeal) and he has been denied
reimbursement to which he is otherwise
entitled to, only on the ground that there
has been a mistake in uploading of his
particulars by the Institution which is an
agency acting on behalf and in connection
of the work of the State for the success of
the scheme and so it cannot be made
responsible for reimbursement of fee,
payment of which is primary duty of the
State. Therefore, the order dated 3rd
December, 2013 of the Joint Direction of
Education directing the respondent no.3
Institution to compensate the petitioner
monetarily out of its own fund, as the
mistake
in
uploading
was
of
the
institution, cannot be sustained. This
order would rather be against the spirit of
the claim itself which provides for
economic help provided by the State to
candidates eligible under the scheme
whose family earning is less than
Rs.30,000/- per annum.
7. For all the reasons stated above,
we do not find any illegality or infirmity
in the findings recorded by the Writ
Court.
8. The appeal is accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Special Appeal No. 1206 of 2014
Smt. Qamaru Nisha
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Keshav Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
High Court Rules-chapter VIII Rule 5Special
Appeal-dismissal
of
petitionclaim of interest-dismissal on account of
non disclosure of actual amount of death
cum-post
retiral
benefits-apart
from
highly
belated
stage-admittedly
the
amount of gratuity and pension given in
2011 after facing contempt proceeding
consuming 29 years-held-approach of
Single Judge wholly erroneous-petition
could not be dismissed-appellant being
heir of deceased employee can not
disclose accurate figure of claim-it is for
the state-order passed by Single Judge
set-a-side-with direction to decide writ
petition
on
merit.