E-Paper
Recovery from pension after retirement only if financial loss is caused to State: HC
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has ruled that recovery from pension can be ordered after retirement only if financial loss is caused to the state, and further ordered the government to refund the deducted amount to the pensioner with six percent interest from the date of deduction
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has ruled that recovery from pension can be ordered after retirement only if financial loss is caused to the state, and further ordered the government to refund the deducted amount to the pensioner with six percent interest from the date of deduction.
A single judge bench of Justice Alok Mathur on August 18 observed: “This court is of the view that punishment order is clearly vitiated and impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioner stands retired on September 30, 2018, which is clearly two years prior to the passing of the impugned order.”
“It is further noticed that no date, time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer which is evident from the inquiry report,” added the court.
“This court is of the opinion that the impugned order (chargesheet) dated May 26, 2018, is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly quashed,” said the court.
“The amount of deduction made from the pension of the petitioner is liable to be refunded within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority along with interest at the rate of six percent from the date of deduction till the amount is refunded to the petitioner,” observed the court.
The case
First charge on the petitioner Eklavya Kumar was that when he was posted as general manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, he gave charge of work agent to daily wager Ram Shanker on recommendation of assistant engineer.
Second charge was related to the appointment of daily wagers Rajesh Kumar and Brijesh Pal Singh, who were given the charge of work agent.
All chargers were denied by the petitioner.
The court observed there is no charge against the petitioner that caused pecuniary loss to the state.
The court also observed that there was no evidence to prove that employees were promoted to the post of work agent.
