Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chandra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14330 of 2019
Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam,Jitendra Rana
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 by which an order of adjustment of Rs. 18,19,088/- from post retiral dues of the petitioner has been made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on the post of Lekhpal in Meerut Development Authority on 04.08.1982 in pay scale of Rs. 185-265, which was revised by the State Government in new pay scale of Rs. 330-495 since 01.07.1979 and pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 since 01.01.1986. The petitioner was retired from service on 31.01.2019 and last salary was withdrawn Rs. 56,900/-. The respondent no. 2 wrote letters on 17.02.1994, 29.06.1994 & 01.08.1994 to State Government regarding the pay scale of Lekhpals of Rs. 950-1500 in the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. Respondent no. 2 has sanctioned /granted pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to Lekhpals of the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut since 01.01.1986. On 03.05.1995, respondent no. 2 has communicated the order dated 15.11.1994 to Secretary of U.P. Government. The petitioner was granted additional increment on 30.09.1995 for accruing the benefit of selection grade in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. On 09.10.1997, State Government constituted pay committee and report of pay committee was accepted on 21.07.1998. After approval of Governor on 13.08.1998, State Government issued a Circular whereby the pay scale of the employees/ officers of all the Development Authorities was revised since 01.01.1996 Rs. 4500-7000. On 29.07.1999, revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-4590 has been granted to the petitioner since 01.01.1996. Thereafter, State Government issued a Circular on 10.04.2006 regarding first and second promotional pay scale. On 25.07.2006, Deputy Secretary, M.D. A. Meerut passed an order:- (i). First promotional pay scale granted to petitioner on 04.08.1996 on the pay scale of Rs. 3200-8500-4900. (ii) Additional increment granted to the petitioner on 04.08.2001. He next submitted that after completion of 24 years' service, second promotional pay scale has been granted to the petitioner on 27.12.2014. Thereafter, on 17.01.2015, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut made fixation of salary and given approval for payment of salary to the petitioner.
He next submitted that there is no dispute in question that petitioner has neither concealed any fact nor committed any fraud and pay scale in question was granted by the competent authority. Therefore, in light of judgment of Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih: 2015 (4) SCC 334, no recovery can be made after retirement from Class-III and Class-IV employee. Therefore, impugned order dated 17.05.2019 is bad and liable to be set aside.
Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments so relied upon.
The Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others (supra), has taken a clear view that in case of incorrect fixation of pay scale, any payment is made, no recovery can be made after retirement from Class-III and Class-IV employee and also framed certain guidelines. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted hereinbelow;
"It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
Case of the petitioner is also falls within the category fixed by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others (supra), therefore, impugned order dated 17.05.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 is bad and set aside. Further, respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioner on the last salary drawn. Respondents are also directed to pay entire post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of three months alongwith interest of 8% per anum from due on the date of actual payment.
With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
Arvind
