Allahabad High Court
Babu Ram vs Sarad Kumar,Engineer on 7 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81477
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4966 of 2022
Applicant :- Babu Ram
Opposite Party :- Sarad Kumar,Engineer
Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Narayan,Ram Raj Prajapati
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. The writ Court on 30.11.2021 while allowing Writ-A No.16255 of 2021 passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
Petitioner by means of the present writ petition assailed the order dated 14.07.2021 by which an amount of Rs.3,79,312/- has been sought to be recovered from him.
Petitioner was Junior Engineer and has retired on 30.06.2020. The aforesaid amount is sought to be recovered on account of excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay of petitioner.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable as the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 (4) SCC 334 has held that no recovery can be made from a class-III employee after his retirement. He submits that it is evident from the impugned order that the recovery is being made against the petitioner on account of re-fixation of pay, which is not permissible in law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
Learned Standing Counsel contended that as the excess payment has been made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay which is evident from the impugned order, therefore, the recovery is likely being effected.
Be that as it may, the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held that no recovery can be made against a Class III employee for the excess payment made to him during the service period. As the law on the point is well settled, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
The impugned order dated 14.07.2021 is quashed and writ petition is allowed. If the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner, that shall be reimbursed to the petitioner forthwith preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Liberty is granted to the respondent State to file recall application if, the petitioner has concealed any peculiar fact in obtaining the aforesaid order."
2. From perusal of the order passed by writ Court it is clear that the order dated 14.7.2021 was quashed by the writ Court and it was directed that the amount, if any recovered from the retiral dues, was to be reimbursed to the applicant.
3. A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of State on 7.11.2023 wherein, in para 5, it has been specifically mentioned that the amount has been recalculated and new pay fixation has been done by the authorities on 01.10.2022 and the amount, which has been calculated, is Rs.30,92,401/-. Earlier the fixation was at Rs.29,43,472/-. Thus, after passing of the order, an amount of Rs.1,48,929/- extra has been paid to the applicant.
4. An objection/ counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant wherein, in para 5, it has been stated that withheld amount of Rs.3,79,312/- has not been paid to the applicant which was withheld by order dated 28.7.2021 from the gratuity amount. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to page 10 of the objection according to which an amount of Rs.7,19,143/- was paid withholding the amount of Rs.3,79,312/-.
5. In the compliance affidavit filed by the State, Annexure 1 is the order dated 01.10.2022 which clearly reveals in para 8 that after the new fixation, the gratuity amount, which has been paid to the applicant is Rs.11,69,949/-. Thus, I find that the order of the writ Court has been complied with and the withheld amount of gratuity has been paid to the applicant.
6. No case for contempt is made out. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed.
7. Contempt notice stands discharged.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Kushal
