Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37526 (ALL)

LT. COL. V.K. SINGH RETD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WRIA/14414/2009 · 2025-08-18

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141584 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14414 of 2009 Petitioner :- Lt. Col. V.K. Singh Retd. Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ajai Bhanot,Bhupendra Singh,Bipin Bihari Pandey,Manoj Kumar Singh,Piyush Shukla,S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Vedant Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. In the present case, petitioner has challenged an order of recovery on the ground that he has not disclosed about his prior appointment as well as that he was receiving pension also. 3. This Court has passed following interim order on 30.03.2009 :- “It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.8,06,080/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay and that such recovery is illegal inasmuch as no fraud or misrepresentation has been attributed on the part of the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Sri Ajay Bhanot. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. In the meanwhile, the recovery of the amount mentioned in Annexure-23 to the petition dated 11.12.08 shall remain stayed until the next date of listing provided the petitioner furnishes security other than in the form of cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of respondent No.3. It is made clear that the petitioner's current salary would be the salary re-fixed by the respondents.” 4. I have considered submissions and since impugned order was passed without giving any notice to petitioner, therefore, it is set aside, however, concerned respondents will be at liberty to issue fresh notice if law permits and in case any notice, petitioner will be at liberty to object it on basis of fact and law, thereafter, respondents may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 N. Sinha Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad