State Of U. P vs. Chhedi Prasad Maurya

COURT NO.8

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23050/2022

(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 05-08-2021 in SPLAD No. 304/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)

STATE OF U.P & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

Respondent $(s)$

VERSUS

CHHOTEY LAL SINGH & ORS.

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R) IA No. 169411/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT <pre>IA No. 169409/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)</pre>

WITH

SLP(C) No. 23099/2022 (XI) (IA No. 170834/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 170833/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

SLP(C) No. 23100/2022 (XI) (IA No. 177036/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT <pre>IA No. 177035/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)</pre>

SLP(C) No. 23101/2022 (XI) (IA No. 186217/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 186218/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date: 30-10-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL

$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$

For Petitioner(s)<br>Signature Not Verified	Mr. K M Natraj, ASG
	Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, A.A.G.
	Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR
	Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv.
	Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv.
Digitally signed by<br>NITIN TALREJA<br>Date: 2023-11.02<br>16:14:47 IST<br>Reason: $16:14:47$	Ms. Arushi Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
	Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

$\mathbf{1}$

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondents in all the connected cases.

The learned ASG submits that the petitioners would not like to challenge the order to the effect that recovery of the excess pay should not be made from the respondents. However, it needs to be clarified that the substantial relief pertain to recovery of the excess payment and there should be no misunderstanding on pay fixation or consequential pension, on account of such pay fixation.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are concerned primarily with nonrecovery of the excess payment.

Having regard to the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions by keeping intact the order passed for nonrecovery of the excess payment. But it is made clear that the impugned order shall have no implication on pay fixation or consequential pension payment.

With the above, the Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

2