Allahabad High Court
Tejpal Verma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5141 of 2023
Petitioner :- Tejpal Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector and has retired from service on 30.04.2022. After his retirement, an amount of Rs.10,89,854/- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner on the ground that excess payment has been made to the petitioner during his service period. Against the order dated 07.11.2022, the petitioner submitted representation to respondent No.5, who vide order dated 16.02.2023 rejected the representation on the ground that on verification of the salary, it was found that the petitioner has been paid excess payment, therefore, recovery of excess payment from the retiral dues of the petitioner is justified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has erred in law in deducting the Rs.10,89,854/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner due to excess payment made to him during his service period. It is submitted that the impugned order does not reflect that there was any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in getting the excess payment. It is submitted that controversy in hand is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 (4) SCC 334 in which it has been held that no recovery can be made after retirement.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contended that the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner as excess payment has been made to the petitioner. It is submitted that in such view of the fact, the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with.
Be that as it may, the order does not reflect that any fraud or misinterpretation on the part of the petitioner in obtaining excess payment has been made.
As the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that no recovery can be made after retirement, therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned is not sustainable.
Consequently the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by respondent No.5 and recovery of Rs.10,89,854/- passed vide order dated 07.11.2022 by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Agra are set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Respondent No.5- Assistant Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Agra is directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,89,854/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
In case, the amount of Rs.10,89,854/- is not released within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry simple interest @10% per annum from the date of recovery of the amount till the date of its payment.
It is further provided that liberty is granted to the respondents to file recall application, in case, there is any concealment of fact by the petitioner in obtaining the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
R.S. Tiwari
