Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 July, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146758
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11790 of 2023
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the District Development Officer, Baghpat re-fixing the salary of the petitioner and the consequential order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Baghpat directing that Rs. 8,80,854/- be recovered from the petitioner for the excess payment allegedly made while he was in service and due to wrong fixation of salary/ pay-scale.
The petitioner retired as an Accountant from the office of District Development Officer, Baghpat.
In State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer): 2015 4 SCC 334, the Supreme Court held in paragraph no. 12 as follows:-
"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."
In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), the order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Baghpat is hereby quashed.
In case, any recovery in pursuance to the order dated 17.06.2023 has already been made, the District Development Officer shall ensure that the amount recovered is returned to the petitioner within one month from the date a certified copy is filed before him.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.7.2023
Vipasha
