Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78352 (ALL)

SABHA PATI YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/10345/2025 · 2025-07-24

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122533 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10345 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sabha Pati Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Shiv Prakash Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhanshu Vaibhav Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vibhanshu Vaibhav, learned counsel for Respondents-3 and 4. 2. Petitioner was retired from the post of Tax Superintendent from Nagar Nigam, Aligarh on 29.02.2024 and after about six months of his retirement, petitioner was served with an order dated 06.09.2024 that on audit objection it was held that petitioner was paid in higher pay scale since 01.07.2010 and after calculation an amount of Rs. 3,30,376/- was deducted from his retiral benefits. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that in case a notice was issued to petitioner, he may satisfy that fixation of pay scale was correct. He also refers that there is a legal impediment that recovery cannot be made after retirement and for that he placed reliance on Government Order dated 24.12.2009 as well as a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Jogeswar Sahoo and others vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and others: 2025 INSC 449. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-3 and 4 is not able to show, whether petitioner was put under notice before impugned order was passed, especially when not only it was passed subsequent to his retirement but a direction to recover the amount was also passed. He has also not disputed about the legal impediment, as referred above. 5. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that impugned order cannot survive legally since not only it was passed subsequent to retirement of petitioner but the calculation was also made behind his back. The Court also takes note of above referred legal impediment. 6. In view of above, impugned order dated 06.09.2024 is hereby set aside. In case respondents still want to propose a deduction, they shall put petitioner on notice. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad