w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Fateh Singh Arya v/s U.P. State Agro Industrial

    Writ A No. 23502 of 2009

    Decided On, 20 January 2017

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

    For the Appellant: Shakti Swaroop Nigam, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.B. Mishra, B.D. Pandey, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited.

2. Petitioner was intially appointed as Assistant Sales Manager, Grade-I in U.P.S.A.I.D.C. on 15.05.2071. Indue course, he was ultimately promoted as Regional Manager, Meerut Region. Petitioner thereafter, retired after attaining age of superannuation on 30.09.2003. However, respondents withheld leave incashment and gratuity of petitioner for almost three years, where for, detailed representations were made to U.P.S.A.I.D.C. but in vain. Thereafter, aggrieved by inaction of respondents, petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.41306 of 2006 praying for a writ of mandamus to respondents to pay petitioner's leave incashment and gratuity. Vide order dated 25.08.2008, writ petition was allowed and respondents were directed to pay petitioner's entire amount of leave incashment and gratuity with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of retirement. Even thereafter, payments were not made and petitioner had to file contempt Petition No.584 of 2009 before this Court. It is asserted in the Writ Petition that on 27.04.2009, retiral dues of petitioner were paid through cheque but deducting amount of Rs.75,470/- from gratuity of petitioner. Copy of order dated 13.04.2009, passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, which is impugned in this writ petition are annexed as Annexures No.2 and 3 to this writ petition.

3. The aforesaid orders of recovery were passed on the basis of some audit report.

4. From order dated 25.08.2008 passed by Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that neither any notice or charge-sheet was ever given to petitioner nor any inquiry was initiated against him. Respondents have not passed any order fixing responsibility of embezzlement or dues against petitioner, after his retirement for the last five years.

5. Counter affidavit filed in 2006 in Writ Petition No.41306 of 2006 contained a vague reply stating that petitioner's case was being considered and detailed information was being collected but despite lapse of two years from the date of filing of writ petition, matter could not be finalized. Court held that in fact, there was no material on record nor any adjudication and computation to recover any amount from petitioner's retiral dues and none was pending.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no any provision for recovery of aforesaid amount merely on the basis of audit report and without holding any inquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

7. Having gone through the record and perusing impugned orders as well as order dated 25.08.2008 of this Court, we find that impugned orders have been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no oral inquiry was held before deducting aforesaid amount of Rs.75,470/- from gratuity amount. Moreover, there is no provision nor could any be pointed out by counsel for respondents under which such deduction can be made from gratuity fund of the employee. Impugned orders have been passed without any material whatsoever available on record; in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. In view of above, impugned orders dated 13.04.2009 cann

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ot be sustained and deserved to be quashed. 8. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Orders impugned in this petition are quashed. Amount of Rs.75,470/- deducted from gratuity of petitioner shall be refunded to petitioner along with interest of 10% per annum from the date, gratuity was payable to petitioner i.e. 30.09.2003, till it is actually paid.
O R