Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45995-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13127 of 2018 Petitioner :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Respondent :- R.D.Pal Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey,Neerav Chitravanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. After hearing the parties what comes out is that though opposite party no.1 has retired and is also receiving post retiral benefits but there is a dispute as to the emoluments / post-retiral dues payable on account of his service on deputation to opposite party no.2 during the period 25.06.1995 to 19.08.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon clause-8 of the letter of consent given by the petitioner on 09.05.1995 for sending opposite party no.1 on deputation to opposite party no.2 which reads as under:- "अवककाश ववेतन एववं पपशन सवंबवंधधी अवंशदकान:- अवककाश ववेतन और पपशन कवे ललिए अवंशदकान कका ननगम दकारका अथवका इवं० रकाम ददलिकार दकारका , जजैसधी भधी ससथनत हह , भदगतकान नवतधीय ननयमकावलिधी खवंड-2, भकाग-2 कवे ममूलि ननयम (फण्डकामपटलि रूल्स) 115 व 116 कवे अधधीन, रकाज्यपकालि, उ०प्र० दकारका समय-समय पर ननधकार्धाररत दररों कवे अनदसकार नकयका जकाएगका। सहकायक ननयम 185 कवे अनदसकार, उपरहक्त अवंशदकानरों कका भदगतकान वकानरर्धाक हहगका। यनद वकाह सवेवकावलध 1 वरर्धा सवे कम हह, तह इन अवंशदकानरों कका भदगतकान अलिग-अलिग लिवेखका शधीरर्धाकरों मप जमका नकयका जकाएगका। यनद इन अवंशदकानरों कका भदगतकान नवलिम्बतमम् 15 अप्रजैलि तक नहह नकयका जकातका हजै, तह ननगम कह अथवका इवं० रकाम ददलिकार कह प्रवहक्त सहकायक ननयम 185 मप ननधकार्धाररत दररों सवे दवेय अवंशदकानरों पर ब्यकाज भधी दवेनका पडवेगका , भलिवे हधी मदख्य लिवेखकालधककारधी (ववेतन एववं लिवेखका) उ०प्र० रकाज्य नवददत परररद नवे उन अवंशदकानरों कवे ललिए कहई दकावका पवेश न नकयका हह। अततः यह उक्त ननगम अथवका इवं० रकाम ददलिकार कवे नहत मप हधी हहगका नक वह इन आदवेशरों कवे नमलितवे हधी मदख्य लिवेखकालधककारधी , उ०प्र० रकाज्य नवददत परररद सवे सवंपकर्धा सथकानपत करप और उनसवे इन अवंशदकानरों ककी दररों और उनकवे भदगतकान ककी नवलध कवे बकारवे मप पमूछ लिप। यह अवंशदकान उक्त ननगम अथवका इवं० रकाम ददलिकार दकारका सवंबवंलधत मदख्य लिवेखकालधककारधी, उ०प्र० रकाज्य नवददत परररद, लिखनऊ कह ककाम नकए हहए बबक डडकाफ्ट यका चवेक दकारका भवेजवे जकानवे चकानहए।" The submission is that for the period opposite party no.1 was on deputation, the emoluments including post-retiral dues based thereon were to be paid/ given by opposite party no.2- Corporation but inspite of repeated request the said Corporation has not paid the said dues on account of which it could not be paid to opposite party no.1. The submission is that the liability in this regard is not of the petitioner but of opposite party no.2 who was an opposite party before the tribunal but these aspects have not been taken into consideration and the liability has been fastened upon petitioner though opposite party no.2 as also opposite party no.1 were bound by the conditions of the consent letter given by petitioner for sending opposite party no.1 on deputation to opposite party no.2. On being confronted, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 could not satisfy us that this aspect has been considered by the tribunal. We have also perused the judgment and do not find any consideration of this aspect of the matter. At this stage, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 says that opposite party no.2-Corporation has been closed down. If it is so then one fails to understand as to how the proceedings were undertaken any further and how this matter can be decided by this Court against the petitioner and how the petitioner can be made liable for the aforesaid liability. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 says that after closure of opposite party no.2-Corporation the entire liabilities of opposite party no.2 has been taken over by the State Government but there are no such documents on record. The tribunal was persuaded to pass the impugned judgment only on the reasoning that ultimately the opposite party no.1 herein retired from the services of petitioner but lost sight of the fact that so far as emoluments for the period aforesaid and the post retiral dues based thereon, they were payable by opposite party no.2-corporation. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in so far as it imposes liability for payment of Rs.1,66,579/- upon the petitioner without considering the relevant documents which were before the tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is left open for opposite party no.1 to raise a claim against opposite party no.2 if it is still in operation separately or against its successors in interest who have acquired the assets and liability of opposite party no.2. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench