Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 130434 (ALL)

RAMESH LAL GUPTA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. FOOD SAFETY AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/3333/2025 · 2025-04-11

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20776 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3333 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Lal Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food Safety And Drug Administration Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Singh,Raghvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Ms. Deepshikha Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents. 2.By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to decide petitioner's representation dated 21.2.2016 filed against show cause notice dated 9.11.2015 and 17.2.2016 and also a further direction to respondent No.2 for deciding the representation/appeal dated 8.11.2015 filed against order dated 20.10.2015 and pay salary from 16.9.2014 to 20.10.2015 has been sought. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is going to retire in 2025 itself. His representation/appeal against the punishment order dated 20.10.2015 has not been decided by the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., who is the appellate authority of the petitioner. 4.Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions has submitted that the petitioner was given a show cause notice along with copy of the punishment order dated 9.11.2015 in view of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54 of Financial Hand Book Khand 2 Part 2 regarding arrears of salary as well as subsistence allowance during his suspension period as well as for counting the period of suspension for being treated as spent on duty, and the petitioner was required to give reply within two months. However, the petitioner has not given any reply within the aforesaid period. He gave reply vide his letter dated 21.2.2016, upon which the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration, U.P. was directed to provide instructions. As per instructions, it was provided that the petitioner has not provided any certificate that he was not employed elsewhere during the period of his suspension and was not in any business which is essential for payment of subsistence allowance, that is why, the subsistence allowance has not been given to the petitioner. It is submitted that a decision has been taken under Fundamental Rule 53 of Financial Hand Book, Khand 2, Part 2 to 4. As regards the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 8.11.2015, it is submitted that against the order dated 20.10.2015, no appeal/representation has been received as per records in the U.P. Government. 5.So far as the decision not to pay subsistence allowance is concerned, the petitioner's counsel submits that in case the respondents have taken a decision, a copy thereof may be provided to the petitioner as he has not been apprised of any decision taken regarding his subsistence allowance and arrears of salary during suspension period by the respondents, till date. 6.In view of the above, the petition is finally disposed of with the consent of the parties' counsel with direction to the respondents to provide copy of order by which they have taken a decision on the representation dated 21.2.2016 submitted by the petitioner for payment of his subsistence allowance/arrears of salary. In case no formal order has been passed, the same shall be passed within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order, and a copy of the order so passed shall be provided to the petitioner. As regards relief No.2, claimed by the petitioner, since there is a denial by the State Government that they have not received any appeal dated 8.11.2015 allegedly submitted by him against the punishment order dated 20.10.2015 and the petitioner also could not show as to how he has served the said appeal to the State, prayer No.2 is refused. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to produce evidence to the appellant authority regarding filing of his appeal on 8.11.2015. In case the petitioner is able to give such evidence, the appeal shall be decided as per law, expeditiously. 7.The petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench