Allahabad High Court
Jawahar Lal vs Managing Director, U.P. Seeds ... on 7 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2635 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jawahar Lal
Respondent :- Managing Director, U.P. Seeds Development Corporation Lko. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Singh,Divaker Man Singh Sengar
Counsel for Respondent :- V.P. Nag
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V. P. Nag for the respondents-U.P. Seeds Development Corporation.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.1.2023 passed by Managing Director, U.P. Seeds Development Corporation thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner preferred against the decision of the respondents to recover an amount of Rs.3,68,138/- from the post retiral dues of the petitioner.
3. It has been submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Seed Production Officer and retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2021. After his retirement order dated 16.6.2022 was passed seeking to recover an amount of Rs.4,22,948/- from the amount of leave encashment admissible to the petitioner. Against the said order dated 16.6.2022 the petitioner had submitted representation which remained pending with the respondents and was not decided. The petitioner approached this Court by filing writ A No.8183 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 5.12.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner expeditiously.
4. It is in compliance of the order of this Court dated 5.12.2022 that the order dated 27.1.2023 has been passed rejecting the representation. While rejecting the representation it has been noticed that the recovery has been made on account of the fact that the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was not admissible to the employees of the corporation as per the Government Order dated 3.3.2017 while the said benefit had been wrongly given to the petitioner which has been sought to be recovered. It has further been held that after considering various government orders the Board of Directors of U.P. Seed Development Corporation had resolved to make admissible the benefit CAS from 2015 onwards and not from any date prior to the same and the petitioner having been granted the said benefit prior to 16th March, 2015 the same was sought to be recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015 SCC 1267. The petitioner retired on 30.6.2021 and it is only after his retirement that the the benefit of CAS which was granted to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from him. Thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the said judgment which reads as under:-
"12. 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. "
6. As per the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court the said recovery from the petitioner cannot be made from the post retiral dues of the petitioner and, hence, entire recovery proceedings against the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the mandate issued by Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 27.1.2023 and 16.6.2022, as contained in Annexure No.s 1 and 3 respectively to the writ petition, are set aside.
7. The amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner expeditiously, but not later than six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority.
Order Date :- 7.4.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
