Allahabad High Court
Navratan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. ... on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 17450 of 2016
Petitioner :- Navratan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Agriculture Civil Sectt. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kapil Dev Chaubey,Nagendra Kumar Dwivedi,Suman Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 07.05.2015 passed by respondent no.3/Finance Controller (Pension Anubhag) Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow and impugned order dated 04.07.2016 passed by respondent no.4/Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Farrukhabad which are appended with the petition as Annexure Nos.- 1 & 2 respectively.
The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to recover any alleged excess money paid to the petitioner and also not to deduct any amount from his retiral benefits or pension.
Learned counsel has submitted that vide the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 (supra), (Annexure-2) respondent no.4/Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Farrukhabad has directed for recovery of Rs.2,49,990/-, which was allegedly paid excess to the petitioner during his service on the basis of wrong pay fixation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 18 that recovery from the salary of Class III and IV employees may not be made even if excess amount is paid without any fault on the part of the employee.
In the present case the benefit of pay scale has been extended to the petitioner by the Department itself, without any representation / mis-representation on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner may not be subjected to the recovery proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even no show cause notice or explanation has been issued to the petitioner when he was in service, therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice also.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the petition on merit but could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he tried to justify the impugned action.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the law cited above, in the light of para 18 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Rafiq Masih (supra) and also in view of the fact that no opportunity of hearing has been extended to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed.
impugned order dated 07.05.2015 passed by respondent no.3/Finance Controller (Pension Anubhag) Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow and impugned order dated 04.07.2016 passed by respondent no.4/Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Farrukhabad (Annexure No.1 & 2) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed not to make any recovery from the pension or other post retiral benefits of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders dated 07.05.2015 and 04.07.2016 and the petitioner be paid his post retiral benefits with expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court.
Writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
Mohit
