Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80353 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6179 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Jain,Tushar Kant Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, who was appointed as Technical Assistant on contract basis at Rural Development Department (MANREGA Cell) specifically at Mungra Block and pursuant to the order of appointment, petitioner continued to discharge his duties. However, it appears that later on a complaint was made by one Sri Surendra that a pond that digging of a pond in his filed was not done under MNREGA. In the meantime, Sri Surendra filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26645 of 2024 for a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representation and to initiate and conclude the enquiry on his complaint. The District Magistrate in compliance of the order passed by this Court heard the complainant on 12.12.2024 and on the same day directed the Upayukt to submit a report in the matter, who prepared a report and submitted before the District Magistrate on 13.12.2024. On the basis of the said report, the District Magistrate passed order of recovery of of Rs.41,860/- from the petitioner, Gram Pradhan and the Secretary Gram Panchayat. One third of the amount is to be recovered from each of them. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that order passed by the District Magistrate is an ex-parte order without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without going through the records. He further submitted that the said order was passed relying upon an incorrect and ex-parte report dated 12.12.2024 of Upayukt. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submits that petitioner has the opportunity to prefer an appeal under schedule 1 of clause 29(i) of minimum features of a Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme referable to Section 4(3) of MANREGA, 2005 and such an appeal could be made to the State Commission (NREGS), Divisional Commissioner (NREGS) and State Grievance Redressal Officer and according to him petitioner should first exhaust this remedy. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that time period prescribed is 45 days and since the order was passed on 13.12.2024, the said period has already come to an end. In the circumstances, therefore, he cannot avail the remedy available under the laws. In such above view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner claims that he discharged his duties to the best of his ability and he has been the only appointee who has been fired by the department, I consider it appropriate for the petitioner to move an appeal before the competent authority as prescribed for under the relevant clause 29(i) of the Minimum Features of Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and in the event he makes such an appeal, as directed herein above, the appellate authority shall look into and consider the appeal of the petitioner and take a final decision upon such appeal within a maximum period of one month of presentation of certified copy of this order. Any recovery shall be performed only after the decision of the appellate forum, if recovery already not done under the order impugned. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad