TASLEEM AHMADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                        WRIT - A No. - 14283 of 2026

Tasleem Ahmad
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :   Mohd Yasir, Shams Uz Zaman
Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :   C.S.C., Jagdish Pathak

Court No. - 32
                      HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:-

     "I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
     audit No. 33 of audit report of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bijnor for the
     audit year 2023-24 (Annexure No.5) insofar as it computes recovery of
     2,95,365/ from the petitioner.

     II.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
     action of respondents in deducting Rs. 5000/ per month from the monthly
     pension of the petitioner w.e.f. April 2026 (as reflected in Annexure No.
     6),

     III.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding Respondents to refund to the petitioner the entire amount
     already deducted from the pension (@ Rs. 5000 per month from April
     onwards), together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
     date of each deduction till the date of actual refund."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, without there
being any valid order passed by the competent authority, the respondents are
illegally deducting a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from the pension
admissible to the petitioner. It is further submitted that, to the best of the
petitioner's knowledge, no such order has been passed directing deduction of
Rs.5,000/- per month from his pension. The petitioner attained the age of
superannuation on 01.07.2023 while serving as a Class-IV employee. It is
lastly submitted that recovery made by the respondents is in violation of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
                                                                                             WRIA No. 14283 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    And Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334.

                                    4. Sri Jagdish Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 has
                                    contended that the grievance of the present petitioner, regarding the
                                    deduction of Rs.5,000/- per month from his pension, can be more
                                    appropriately redressed by the Executive Officer (respondent no.5) and that
                                    he has no objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the
                                    fresh representation, to be moved by the present petitioner, within such
                                    stipulated period, as may be directed by this Court. He, however, further
                                    submits that in light of the undertaking furnished, petitioner is liable to
                                    return the excess salary received by him, in view of the law laid down by the
                                    Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana &
                                    Others vs. Jagdev Singh reported in 2016 (14) SCC 267.

                                    5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
                                    keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
                                    finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
                                    on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioner to move a
                                    fresh representation before the Executive Officer (respondent no.5) to
                                    ventilate his grievances, as raised in this petition, within a period of two
                                    weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self
                                    attested copy of the instant writ petition, who, in turn, shall consider and
                                    decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a
                                    period of two months from the date of production of the same, if there is no
                                    other legal impediment.

                                    6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition stands
                                    disposed of.

                                    September 9, 2026
                                    VR
                                                                                              (Dinesh Pathak,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA RATAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad