HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.18888 of 2019
ORDER :
Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of respondents in recovering an amount of Rs.7,57,702/- from the retirement benefits payable to him.
2. Heard Sri Gundrati Raman Goud, learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and Sri M.Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.
3. Case of the petitioner is that he joined in the service as Forest Beat Officer in the year 1991 and retired from service on 30.06.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation while working as Forester/Forest Section Officer. On 03.07.2017, he requested the 4th respondent to forward his pension papers to the 3rd respondent for release of pension and pensionary benefits and he also made representations dated 07.05.2018 and 04.12.2018 to the 4th respondent to take action for release of his pension and 2 JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019 pensionary benefits. While so, the 3rd respondent had issued pension payment order vide proceedings dated 07.06.2019 showing recovery of an amount of Rs.7,57,702/- from the death-cum- retirement gratuity of petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him while in service, no such recovery can be made from his retirement benefits, that too, without issuing any notice to him, which is against Rules 9(1) and 9(2)(a) and (b) of T.S. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Accordingly, he prayed to direct the respondents to pay back the recovered amount of Rs.7,57,702/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.06.2017 till the date of realization.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 stating that while the petitioner was in service, he was given a target to plant 4000 plants in the avenue plantation from Renjal to Navipet X Road and Renjal to Kandakurthy. Out of the allotted target, the petitioner had raised only 2823 plants and there was a deviation of 1170 plants, however, the petitioner has booked the total funds of Rs.32 lakhs allotted for planting 4000 plants, and thus, the excess 3 JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019 amount of Rs.7,57,702/- drawn by the petitioner, was recovered from his retirement benefits. It is stated in the counter affidavit that notices were issued to the petitioner on 26.09.2018, 26.02.2019 and 09.04.2019 to submit his explanation. Since the petitioner has failed to submit any explanation in response to the said notices, an amount of Rs.7,57,702/- was recovered from his retirement benefits. It is stated that since the petitioner has committed huge deviation in avenue plantation, the aforesaid amount was recovered, and hence, he is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents cannot recover any amount from the petitioner after retirement, as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and no notices for recovery of amount were issued while he was in service and such action of respondents is contrary to the revised pension rules. Therefore, he prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for.
4
JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019
6. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 that the amount of Rs.7,57,702/- was recovered from the retirement benefits of petitioner as huge deviation committed by him in avenue plantation was found after his retirement. It is contended that the petitioner has not responded to the notices issued for the proposed recovery, therefore, the recovery is made. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined in the service of forest department in the year 1991 and retired from service on 30.06.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that while in service, no notices were issued to the petitioner and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him with regard to any deviations in avenue plantation etc. Even according to the respondents, notices for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,57,702/- were issued to the petitioner on 26.09.2018, 26.02.2019 and 09.04.2019 i.e. much later after his retirement. Therefore, the issue 5 JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019 in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has postulated the following situations, where recoveries by employer would be impermissible:
"18. 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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, 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 6 JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019 as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from the retirement benefits of petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.AG(A&E)/P14/I/ B-108/SP161/2019-05815 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to release the amount of Rs.7,57,702/- to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petitioner's retirement i.e. 30.06.2017 till the date of realization. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:13.09.2023 ajr