Siddharth, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Triloki Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shubhranshu Shekhar, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the orders dated 03.12.2015, passed by Prabhagiya Lounging Prabandhak, Uttar Pradesh, Van Nigam, Allahabad, respondent no.4, whereby, he has held that his leave encashment amount of 131 days is being sanctioned with the condition that it shall be paid after adjustment of the dues against the petitioner. By the second order of date passed by the respondent no.4, it has been held that there is outstanding ledger dues of Rs.93,067.25 against him which he has not deposited after repeated informations and therefore orders are being issued for its adjustment from his final dues. Further direction against the respondents to pay entire retiral dues, benefits of the petitioner along with interest has also been sought.
(3.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Scaler on 01.12.1983 in U.P. Forest Corporation, Allahabad and was regularized in 2011. His retirement was due on 31.07.2015 and therefore on 01.05.2015, he requested from the respondent no.4 that prior to his retirement, he may be informed about any dues against him in his Ledger. A letter dated 16.07.2015, was sent by the respondent no.4 that certain dues which were shown against the petitioner have been adjusted against one Yogendra Kumar Mishra, another scaler. No dues were intimated and the petitioner retired on 31.07.2015. When his dues of E.P.F., leave encashment, gratuity pension, etc., were not paid, he represented and was informed by the letter dated 11.08.2015 that an amount of Rs.61,916/- due against him has been adjusted against one Kamla Shankar Tiwari. Nothing was shown due against the petitioner, no enquiry was ever initiated against the petitioner nor any recovery was made from him during the service. On 20.01.2016, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent no.4 stating that he was never intimated about the dues nor any details have been given about the basis of passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders were passed without any opportunity of hearing and any enquiry involving the petitioner, hence this writ petition.;