Allahabad High Court
Shatrujeet Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170183
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12661 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shatrujeet Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated 22.02.2020 & 17.03.2021, copies of which have been filed as Annexures No. 3 & 5 respectively to the writ petition by which his salary has been re-fixed and consequently, re-fixing his pension and other retiral dues and directing for recovery is before this Court.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aggrieved by the re-fixation and is only confining his prayer to the recoveries that have been made by the petitioner in terms of orders impugned. The aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012. Subsequent to his retirement, he is drawing his pension on the basis of his last pay drawn. By means of the impugned orders dated 22.02.2020 & 17.03.2021, his salary has been re-fixed which has entailed re-fixation of his pension and other retiral dues and in pursuance thereof, the respondents have directed for making recovery after re-fixation.
5. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 the contention is that as the petitioner was a Class III employee and he retired from service way back in the year 2012 consequently, after a period of almost eight to nine years of his retirement, no recovery is permissible more particularly when there is no allegation of any fraud being played by the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel has justified the orders passed by the respondents of re-fixation and consequential recovery by contending that in the year 2010 itself the fixation of salary of the petitioner had been done wrongly and upon it being discovered, the same has entailed calculation of all the retiral dues on the basis of the re-fixed last salary drawn, by means of the orders impugned dated 22.02.2020 & 17.03.2021 which have been passed for re-fixing the salary of the petitioner and for re-fixation of the pensionary benefits and which has also necessitated passing of the orders for recovery in terms of the aforesaid orders.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what is apparent is that the petitioner, a Class III employee retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012. Subsequent to his retirement i.e after a period of more than eight to nine years, the respondents have passed the impugned orders dated 22.02.2020 & 17.03.2021 by which the salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed whereby also re-fixing the retiral dues of the petitioner and thus directing for consequential recovery.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already stated that he is not intending to challenge the re-fixation order but is only aggrieved by the recovery which cannot be made from the petitioner.
9. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that no recovery is permissible from a Class-III & Class IV employee after his retirement .
10. Considering the aforesaid and more particularly when the Apex Court has specifically restrained the state for making any recovery from Class-III & Class-IV employee and the petitioner is also not aggrieved by the re-fixation order, accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.02.2020 & 17.03.3021, copies of which are annexures 3 & 5 to the writ petition are set aside to the extent they direct for making recovery on account of the re-fixation.
11. It is also provided that in case any recovery has been made from the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders, the same would be refunded.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Pachhere/-
