The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed for quashing the Rail District, Katihar District Order passed by respondent no. 3 by which the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.4,42,314/- in the office of Rail Police, Katihar which was allegedly excess paid to the deceased husband of the petitioner in the head of Salary, held that recovery, if any, has to be made from the employee who has received the excessive payment, but not from the wife of the employee.
Brief Facts:
The husband of the petitioner was in service and his salary was fixed by the respondent authorities themselves. The husband of the petitioner died in the course of discharging his duties on 12.07.2016. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application form for payment of all kinds of death-cum-retiral dues of her husband. The order impugned dated 09.12.2016 was served in which direction was made to the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.4,42,314/- in the Rail Police Office, Katihar which was allegedly paid in excess to the husband of the petitioner in the head of salary on the basis of wrong fixation of pay in his lifetime.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that respondent no. 3 categorically informed the petitioner that unless and until the said amount is refunded, the death-cum-retiral dues could not be considered. He argued that recoveries by the employers are impermissible in law from the employee belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services or Group C-and Group-D services. He further contended that recovery from a retired employee or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery shall also not be made.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that from the order impugned, it is crystal clear that there was no direction for recovery of the said amount. He argued that the petitioner herself decided to return the said excessive money received by her husband to respondent no. 3 and for which she has prepared a cheque and deposited the same in the official account through respondent no. 3.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the husband of the petitioner was in service of the respondent. According to the respondent, excessive payment towards salary was paid to him during his lifetime. He admittedly died during the course of discharge of his duties on 12.07.2016 and a letter was intimated to the wife of the deceased employee that excessive payment has been made by her husband and direction has been made for refund of same.
The Court observed that recovery, if any has to be made from the employee who has received the excessive payment, but not from the wife of the employee. In addition to that it is nowhere alleged that the husband of the petitioner is anyway responsible for the wrong fixation or due to his misrepresentation or fraud.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the issuance of the order to the petitioner’s wife for a refund of money is bad in law.
Case Title: Sunita Devi v The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dr. Anshuman
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9393 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. M.N.H. Khan,
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
