Allahabad High Court
Amar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1582 of 2023
Petitioner :- Amar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally disposed of.
The facts of the case is that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 31.01.1982 in Civil Police and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.03.2022.
It is submitted that the respondent No.4 by means of the impugned order dated 15.07.2022, the salary of the petitioner was revised and re-fixed with retrospective effect in a most illegal manner, which has caused monetary loss to the petitioner.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the salary of the petitioner from Rs.59,900/- was revised and fixed at Rs.53,600/- w.e.f. 01.07.2021. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 by means of the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 whereby it was stated that after the retirement of the petitioner, the final payment was made as per 90% gratuity on 09.04.2022 at Rs.11,06,905/-, however, it was also mentioned that Rs.6,82,154/- has been paid excess which was directed to be recovered/deducted from the post retiral dues payable to the petitioner. Thus, the substantial reduction of pay, the pension as well as other post retiral dues have also been reduced in a most illegal manner by the respondents.
His next submission is that the petitioner is a Group-C employee, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in [(2015) 4 SCC 334], the recovery of the amount cannot be made. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any fraud nor he misrepresented the fact before the respondents in fixation of salary, therefore, the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioner is not justifiable.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents on the basis of written instructions which have been provided to the Court and is taken on record states that the grievance of the petitioner shall be examined by the authority concerned afresh in accordance with law and he could not dispute that prior to passing of the order, no opportunity was granted.
Considering the hardship which may be caused to a class III and class IV employee if recovery is affected from such employee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has been pleased to lay down following principles in para 18:-
"18. 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."
Admittedly, there does not appear to be any case of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner in the matter, nor the learned standing counsel has raised any such issue nor it has been indicated in the written instructions which are on record.
In such circumstances, the orders impugned dated 15.07.2022 and 29.11.2022 cannot be sustained and are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to examine the matter, afresh, and pass appropriate order, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), within a period of three months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order. Whatever retiral dues are found payable shall be released to the petitioner within a further period of two months.
As regards, the claim of interest on the delay dues, it would be open to the petitioner to raise such grievance before the appropriate forum.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023
Asheesh
