Ram Pratap Kushwaha vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Othes
2022 Latest Caselaw 22287 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17834 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Kushwaha
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Othes
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bramh Narayan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby against an amount of Rs. 7,79,992/- towards gratuity and Rs. 7,94,490/- towards commutation which comes to a total of Rs. 15,74,412/- only Rs. 12,54,162/- has been paid and upon an enquiry being made the respondents orally stated that the difference of amount i.e. 3,20,250/- has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner towards the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner, a copy whereof is already contained in Annxure-1 to the writ petition;

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 3,20,250/- to the petitioner which has been illegally and arbitrarily recovered from the gratuity and commutation of the petitioner which cannot be recovered in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and others reported in 2015(4) S.C.C. 332;

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions states that the petitioner was granted the benefit on account of wrong fixation and subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner when it was found that the petitioner has been paid excess amount, recoveries have been effected. The instructions are taken on record.

The counsel for the petitioner states that the recovery is contrary to the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.: 2014 Law Suit (SC) 1075.

In view of the stand of the Standing Counsel that the recoveries have been made on account of the wrong fixation and there being no denial that the petitioner was working on a Class IV post, clearly the recovery from the petitioner is contrary to the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), as such, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 01.11.2021 is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,20,250/- deducted from the petitioner within a period of two months from today.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 21.12.2022

Shafique