Awadhesh Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 10511 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10511 ALL
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Awadhesh Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 17 August, 2022

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16325 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Awadhesh Bahadur Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Radhika Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. It is not in dispute that petitioner was retired on 30.06.2009 from the post of Compositor and his final pension was approved on 20.07.2009. After more than six months petitioner received impugned letter dated 05.02.2010 for recovery of Rs. 2,03,000/- from petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it was a recovery of about Rs. 50,000/- deposited in the GPF account, however, while passing the order of recovery interest of more than Rs. 2 lacs was also added which is not only erroneous but against the law declared by Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883.

3. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition in the year 2010 and on 29.03.2010 an interim order was passed that there will be no recovery against petitioner. It appears that this matter was listed thereafter only in 2018 and now for final hearing in 2022.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, has relied on para 7 of the counter affidavit that in the year 1999-2000 petitioner was sanctioned withdrawal of Rs. 69,984/- which exceeded even the amount deposited in his GPF account resulting in minus balance of Rs. 50,749/-. The opening balance of GPF account for the year 2000-2001 of petitioner was shown plus Rs. 50,749 instead of minus Rs. 50,749/-. However, this mistake was detected by respondents after more than eight years.

5. Be that as it may, considering that actual amount was about Rs. 50,000/- only which was a mistake committed by respondents and not by petitioner and it was detected after more than eight years and also taking note that there is a stay order which is operating from 2010 till date as well as considering the judgment passed by Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), wherein such recovery is held to be bad in law, therefore, in the interest of justice the interim order dated 29.03.2010 is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 17.8.2022