Natthoo Lal Verma vs State Of U.P.And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5727 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3239 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Natthoo Lal Verma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi,Harsh Kumar Anand,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atipriya Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The present petition has been filed stating that the petitioner has retired from the post of Head Constable on 31.08.2022.

It is stated that after the retirement, certain dues amounting Rs.5,81,444/- have been deducted/ recovered from the post retiral benefit which according to the petitioner is contrary to law.

Learned Standing Counsel argues that the recovery certificate has been issued on account of wrong fixation of salary.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as impugned order. Facts of the case are undisputed. Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334 while dealing with such dispute, had framed following guidelines:-

"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."

Undisputedly, case of petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and petitioner was not responsible for fixation of incorrect pay scale and consequently for excess payment.

Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 14.12.2022 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.5 is directed to release the entire deducted amount of Rs.5,81,444/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

In case, the amount of Rs.5,81,444/- is not released within the aforesaid period, same shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of its payment.

However, respondents are at liberty to file a recall application within a period of two months if this order is obtained by the petitioner by concealing material fact.

Order Date :- 21.2.2023

Sattyarth