Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2617 of 2025 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Prison Administration And Reform And 3 Others Respondent :- U.P. Public Services Tribunal Lko. Thru. Chairman And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. Heard learned counsel for the State. The present writ petition is directed against the judgement and order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal on 07.06.2023 in Claim Petition No.1843 of 2019 whereby the order of recovery passed against the respondent no.2 to the tune of Rs.72085/- has been rejected. Admittedly for the purchase of tractor, an amount of Rs.4,97,915/- was sanctioned on 19.12.2016, however, during the interregnum period between the date of proposal and grant of sanction, there was a rise in the price of tractor and insofar as government agency is concerned, the price had escalated to Rs.5,93,575/-. The respondent having exercised his due diligence explored the same product from a private agency and he was able to purchase the same product for sum of Rs.5,70,000/-. Since the amount sanctioned was Rs. 4,97,915 as on 19.12.2016, therefore, any amount spent by the respondent over and above the sanctioned amount became a subject matter of recovery. The respondents in his reply took specific defence that the market value of this product had since escalated during the interregnum period, therefore, having explored the lowest price for the same product, he had rather saved the department from any higher loss and it is for this reason the product was purchased at a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- as compared to the price quoted by the government agency i.e. Rs.5.93,575. The Tribunal having gone into the issue has opined that no fault can be attributed against the respondent for the reason that he having exercised due diligence has rather profitted the government due to his discretion so exercised. That apart, there was no ill motive on the part of the respondent while entering into the transaction, therefore, we do not find any error in the judgement rendered by the tribunal and the reasons recorded are just and proper. The judgement impugned does not call for any interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus we decline to entertain the present writ petition and the same is hereby rejected. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench