Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2125 of 2015 Petitioner :- Baldev Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- K. Ajit,Vinit Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Vineet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present petition is being decided at this stage itself.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 24.7.2014 and 31.7.2012 passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Office of the Sugar Commissioner, U.P.
By the impugned order dated 24.7.2014 recovery is being sought to be made from the petitioner on the ground that by mistake higher pay grade was given to him and therefore, the recovery of the excess amount is liable to be made from his pension.
Vide order dated 21.1.2015 interim order was granted staying the operation of the recovery.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the impugned order dated 24.7.2014 another Government Order dated 5.11.2014 was issued by the State Government clarifying certain anomalies in the previous government orders and the previous government orders on this issue were superseded by this Government Order. The aforesaid Government Order dated 5.11.2014 has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. He further pointed out that subsequently another Government Order dated 3.3.2015 was issued by the State Government according to which now there is no confusion that the petitioner is entitled for third ACP after completion of his 26 years of regular service from the date of his appointment. He submits that there can be no dispute that the petitioner has completed 26 years of service from the date of his regular appointment.
In paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit he had pointed that three persons namely Raj Kumar Sharma, Indra Pal Rathi and Suresh Pal have been granted benefit of third ACP, which was withdrawn by the respondents, but now in the light of Government Order dated 3.3.2015 they have been granted benefit of third ACP. Submission, therefore, is that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Insofar as the recovery of excess amount is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washers) and others 2015 (4) SCC 334 and therefore, the recovery so directed to be made from the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed.
Insofar as the entitlement for the third ACP is concerned, prima facie, now the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered by the State Government in the light of Government Order dated 3.3.2015, moreso, in view of the assertion that others have been granted benefit of the same.
Learned Standing Counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by the respondent no. 2 at the first instance.
Accordingly, the recovery of amount pursuant to the impugned orders is hereby quashed. Matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2-Sugar Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow for passing fresh orders regarding entitlement of the petitioner for grant of third ACP in the light of subsequent government orders as mentioned above. The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation for this purpose with all relevant documents alongwith certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 2, who shall consider and pass necessary orders preferably within a period of three months form the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Lalit Shukla