AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
The petitioner seeks that the recovery of Rs. 4,25,331/-, as initiated by the respondents from the petitioner be quashed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner retired from the services of the respondents in the year 2012. After a lapse of about 10 years, the
respondents have initiated recovery of Rs. 4,25,331/-from the petitioner claiming that this has been an amount paid in excess to the petitioner.
The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why the petition be entertained in view of the existence of the State
Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 15.01.2021
(Annexure No.7 to the writ petition), submitted by the petitioner.
On behalf of the State, a submission is given that the representation dated 15.01.2021 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) will be decided by the
respondents within a period of two months from today.
The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.
The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents, to decide the representation dated 15.01.2021 (Annexure No.7 to the writ
petition) within a period of two months from today. But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ
petition, on the subject, shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.