Harprasad Kushwaha vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 1597 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17643 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Harprasad Kushwaha
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Accountant on 31.08.2014.

By the impugned order, it has been found that the petitioner has been paid excess amount from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2015 and a consequential direction has been issued to recover the excess amount of Rs.2,52,360-00 from the petitioner's post retiral benefits/pension.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a retired Class III employee and from the impugned order it does not reflect that there is any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even if the pay fixation has been done erroneously by the respondents, it was their responsibility and the petitioner cannot be responsible for the said mistake. He has relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), JT 2015 (1) SC 95   wherein the Court has laid down the law that no recovery should be made from the retired Class-III and IV employees especially when there is no allegation of fraud.

Matter needs consideration.

Learned Standing Counsel is granted two months time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Till the next date of listing, no recovery or adjustment shall be made from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.032016 issued by respondent no.3.

Order Date :- 20.4.2016

AU