Allahabad High Court
Devendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15576 of 2022
Petitioner :- Devendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishir Sripat,Atipriya Gautam,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents.
Case was heard on 21.10.2022 and Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after retirement, certain amount has been deducted from the post retiral dues of the petitioner on the ground that earlier incorrect fixation of pay scale was made. It is next submitted that in light of the judgment of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih: 2015 (4) SCC 334, in case of incorrect fixation of pay scale, any payment is made, no such recovery/deduction can be made after retirement.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.
Put up this case as fresh on 09.12.2022."
Pursuant to the order dated 21.10.2022, learned standing counsel has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. He submitted that due to incorrect fixation of pay scale excess payment has been made to the petitioner.
Being confronted by the Court, on the basis of instruction he submitted that petitioner is not responsible for incorrect fixation of pay scale.
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 Rafiq Masih (supra) 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 order dated 28.6.2022 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Respondent no.5 is directed to pay the entire deducted amount along with interest from due date to the date of actual payment within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
However, liberty is given to State-authorities to conduct inquiry in the matter and to fix the responsibility for excess payment and recover the same from the Officers/employees, who are responsible for the same.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
Arvind
