HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9124 of 2024 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4. 2. Although under challenge is the notice dated 18.09.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, sent to the petitioner informing her that for a loss caused to the Corporation of Rs.2,17,843.80/- the amount is to be recovered from the petitioner and she has been asked to submit her reply, yet the fact of the matter is that the husband of the petitioner who was working as a Scaler died on 06.02.2020. 3. The petitioner in the capacity of being widow of Late Surya Nath has filed the instant petition being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated 18.09.2024. 4. Contention is that once husband of the petitioner died on 06.02.2020 consequently notice requiring the petitioner to give her no objection to recovering the aforesaid amount is patently misconceived and no such order could have been passed against the petitioner and there should not be any question for taking her consent for recovering the said amount more Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rishabh Tripathi Sita Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) particularly when the husband of the petitioner has already died on 06.02.2020. 5. On the other hand, Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of averments contained in short counter affidavit has argued that certain loss, has been occasioned to the Corporation on account of conduct of the husband of the petitioner for which a report indicating the said fact was submitted on 24.07.2021 as indicated in para 7 of the short counter affidavit. Based on the said report, the amount of Rs.2,26,441.66/- has been deducted/adjusted from the leave encashment of Late Surya Nath i.e. the husband of the petitioner while the rest of the amount has been paid. 6. Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel contends that once it has emerged in the report dated 24.07.2021 that there was a liability on the husband of the petitioner consequently no error has been occasioned by the respondents in issuing the aforesaid notice requiring the consent from the petitioner for withholding of the aforesaid amount. 7. The aforesaid argument of Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel is found to be patently fallacious and misconceived. The reason is that admittedly husband of the petitioner died on 06.02.2020. The report on which reliance has been placed by the respondents is of 24.07.2021 and in case the respondents have got a report which is subsequent to the death of the husband of the petitioner, the same cannot be made a basis for withholding the amount which is towards the alleged loss, which had been caused by the husband of the petitioner inasmuch as the report is dated 24.07.2021, husband of the petitioner died on 06.02.2020 and thus it is apparent that obviously the version of the husband of the petitioner would not have been taken at the time of submission of the said report. Thus the said report dated 24.07.2021 cannot be made a basis for withdrawing of the leave encashment as due to the petitioner. WRIA No. 9124 of 2024 2 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 18.09.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. 9. The respondents are directed to pay withheld amount of leave encashment which as per para 8 of the short counter affidavit is Rs.2,26,441.66/- within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The respondents would also pay interest @ 7% from the date same became due. September 25, 2025 prateek WRIA No. 9124 of 2024 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench