HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 39317 of 2011 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 10 of 2021. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the respondents.. 2. Substitution application is allowed. 3. Petitioner may carry out substitution during the course of the day. Order on Writ Petition. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the present case, petitioner has suffered an order of recovery of about Rs.11 Lakhs as the charges levelled against him were found to be proved vide order dated 4.6.2011. Said order was challenged before this Court. No interim order was passed and the matter remained pending for last 14 years. 3. During pendency of this writ petition, petitioner died on 3.5.2021 and as referred above, a Substitution Application for substituting his legal heirs is being allowed, therefore, in such circumstances when entire retiral benefits were withheld as well as after retirement, a provision to continue with inquiry was inserted in U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 being sub-clause (xi) and (xii) of Clause 85 by notification dated 27.8.2018, i.e. subsequently therefore, at Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Rai, Sharad Sinha Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Lal, Nikhil Kumar Shashi Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) this stage, legal heirs of the petitioner will be entitled for retiral benefits of original petitioner though at this stage issue of retrospective or prospective of referred amendment is kept open as well as taking note that there are certain irregularities in the procedure of inquiry also, therefore, impugned order dated 4.6.2011 is set-aside and its legal consequence will follow. 4. Court also takes note of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow & Ors, (2014) 7 SCC 260, whereby said Regulations (prior to above referred amendments) were considered that there was no provision to commence or continue with disciplinary proceedings after retirement of an employee of Cooperative Institutional Service. 5. With the aforesaid direction and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. September 15, 2025 SB WRIA No. 39317 of 2011 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad