Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal, ... on 29 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
NISHA CWP-6304-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:058391-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-6304-2024 Date of decision: 29.04.2024 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..-Petitioners VERSUS CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AND ANOTHER .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners. 3h 2K ok 3 DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(ORAL)
1. On 16.01.1990, the respondent was appointed as a Gangman by the Northern Railways. After having put in service of 31 years, 04 months and 27 days, he sought and got voluntary retirement primarily on the ground that for the past few years, he was suffering from Coronary Artery Disease. At the time of his retirement, he was serving as a Pointsman which admittedly is a Group 'C' post. While releasing his retiral benefits, an amount of €1,20,456/- was deducted by the petitioners from the gratuity payable to the respondent. As per the petitioners, such deduction was for the reason that from July, 2020, till the date of his voluntary retirement on 18.11.2020, the respondent had been paid monthly salary at the rate of Rs.36,100/- against his actual salary which was €35,000/-.
2024.05.09 14:21 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
NISHA CWP-6304-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:058391-DB
2. Through an Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the respondent challenged the afore deduction made by the petitioners on the ground that the same was without any notice to the respondent and that in any case, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334 no deduction could have been made from the respondent's retiral benefits as the respondent, at the time of his voluntary retirement was a Group 'C' employee.
3. The Tribunal relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court including Rafiq Masih's case (supra) and allowed the respondent's OA which judgment passed by the Tribunal is under challenge through the instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent had been paid higher salary on account of a mistake; the respondent being a beneficiary under a mistake could not unduly enrich himself with amounts which he was legally not entitled to and that Rafig Masih's case (supra) would not apply to the respondent's case.
5. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have been considered.
6. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra) reads as under:-
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
2024.05.09 14:21 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
NISHA CWP-6304-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:058391-DB
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
(emphasis supplied)
7. As per the afore-quoted judgment by the Supreme Court, recovery of payments mistakenly made by the employer to Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees are impermissible.
8. Admittedly, on the date when the recovery was made from the respondent's gratuity, he was a Group 'C' employee who had sought and got voluntary retirement on account of ill health. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafig Masih's case (supra) recovery of excess salary mistakenly paid to him could have not been made especially when it is not disputed that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the respondent's part and that before making the deductions from the gratuity payable to the respondent, no notice or opportunity of hearing had been granted to him by the petitioners.
2024.05.09 14:21 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-6304-2024 -4. 2024: PHHC:058391-DB
9. In light of the afore discussion, we find no error, in fact or in law, in the judgment of the Tribunal impugned by the petitioners through the instant petition.
10. Dismissed.
(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE April 29, 2024 Nisha Yadav Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2024.05.09 14:21 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.