Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 15133 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16065 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Virendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Prajapati,Dinesh Kumar Maurya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents .

Petitioner by means of the present writ petition assailed the orders dated 17.6.2021, 26.6.2021, 29.12.2021 and 27.5.2022 by which an amount of Rs.4,25,644/- has been sought to be recovered from him.

Petitioner was Assistant Boring Technician and has retired on 31.7.2020. The aforesaid amount is sought to be recovered on account of excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay of petitioner.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable as the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 (4) SCC 334 has held that no recovery can be made from a class-III employee after his retirement. He submits that it is evident from the impugned order that the recovery is being made against the petitioner on account of re-fixation of pay, which is not permissible in law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).

Learned Standing Counsel contended that as the excess payment has been made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay which is evident from the impugned order, therefore, the recovery is likely being effected

Be that as it may, the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held that no recovery can be made against a Class III employee for the excess payment made to him during the service period. As the law on the point is well settled, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).

The impugned orders dated 17.6.2021, 26.6.2021, 29.12.2021 and 27.5.2022 are quashed and writ petition is allowed. If the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner, that shall be reimbursed to the petitioner forthwith preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Liberty is granted to the respondent State to file recall application if, the petitioner has concealed any peculiar fact in obtaining the aforesaid order.

Order Date :- 21.10.2022

Arvind