Allahabad High Court
Central Board Of Trustees Epfo vs The Central Administrative Tribunal, ... on 10 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT A No. - 2021 of 2024
Central Board of Trustees EPFO
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench and another
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Satyajit Mukerji
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Dinesh Kumar Pandey
Chief Justice Court
HONBLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HONBLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Satyajit Mukerji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 1, being the Tribunal itself, has been arrayed in proforma capacity.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the respondent of Original Application (O.A.) No. 366 of 2017 (Smt. Renuka Sharma vs. Union of India and others) challenging the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A., set aside the orders dated 08.11.2016 and 15.12.2016 impugned therein and issued direction to refund the amount of Rs. 1,37,282/-, which had been deducted by the petitioner from the post retiral dues of the respondent, along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 09.03.1977. She was, later on, promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 21.06.1980. The respondent, on 21.05.2007, was placed under suspension, which order was revoked on 24.08.2007. Departmental proceedings were instituted against the respondent vide office two memoranda dated 21.05.2007 and 25.04.2008 on the charge that she had availed House Rent Allowance (H.R.A.), though the same was not admissible to her as per applicable rules as her husband, being an employee if I.I.T., had been allotted residential accommodation. Further charge against her was that while she was posted as Section Supervisor, she had drawn Fixed Medical Allowance (F.M.A.) as part of her salary since July, 1984 and she had also been availing medical reimbursement in cash for indoor treatment for self as well her children from time to time, whereas her husband, while working as Technical Assistant, had declared the respondent and her three children as dependent on him for LTC and medical facility.
4. In the departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 04.09.2012, recorded that the charges were not proved, however, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer and imposed a major punishment upon the respondent by awarding compulsory retirement with effect from 13.03.2013, i.e. 18 days before her superannuation and also directed recovery of H.R.A. amount paid to her alongwith interest. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed, the order of punishment was set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and the matter was transferred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut, i.e. the Competent Authority. After remittance, the Competent Authority, by order dated 04.10.2016, dropped the charge qua H.R.A. As far as the charge qua F.M.A. is concerned, a penalty of 10% cut in pension for one year was awarded to the respondent by a separate order dated 04.10.2016.
5. In the meantime, the respondent, having attained the age of superannuation, retired from her post on 31.03.2013. Three years after her retirement, two orders were passed by the petitioner. By the first order dated 08.11.2016, recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,39,342/- was ordered on the ground that the said amount had been wrongly paid to the respondent towards H.R.A. Second part of the said order directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,113/- as license fees for the period w.e.f. April, 2013 to November, 2013 and a further sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- towards House Rent at market rate for the period w.e.f. December, 2013 to November, 2016. By the second order dated 15.12.2016, total recovery of Rs. 7,97,670/- was worked out and after adjusting the deduction made towards gratuity and other sums, a sum of Rs. 1,37,282/- was indicated as the amount finally recoverable from her and she was asked to deposit the same with the petitioner. These two orders were challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal that has allowed the O.A. with the directions, as noted above.
6. In this writ petition, after noting down the contention raised and reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih and others: (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33, an interim order was passed on 12.02.2024 staying the effect and operation of the order dated 13.10.2023. The interim order was extended from time to time and is operative till today.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that, admittedly, the respondent, even after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013 and having retired from her post, overstayed in the allotted accommodation and, therefore, recovery of licence fees of Rs. 14,113/- for the period w.e.f. April, 2013 to November, 2013 and House Rent of Rs. 3,15,000/- at market rate for the period of her overstay, i.e. w.e.f. December, 2013 to November, 2016, was rightly ordered by the petitioner but the Tribunal, by wrongly placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) which applies in cases of recovery of the amount paid to the employee during the subsistence of service, misdirected itself and wrongly allowed the O.A. It is further submitted that the husband of the respondent being already an employee with the I.I.T. Kanpur, H.R.A. was wrongly received by the respondent by concealment of facts that she was not entitled for the same and, therefore, the orders impugned before the Tribunal were perfectly justified and the Tribunal should not have set aside the same.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there were two charges levelled against the respondent in the departmental proceedings, one in relation to wrongful payment of F.M.A. and the other regarding wrongful receipt of H.R.A. and in H.R.A. matter, the respondent was exonerated and, therefore, once the very basis of recovery stood washed away as a result of culmination of departmental proceedings in favour of the respondent, the orders of recovery are not at all sustainable. Further, in so far as payment of F.M.A. is concerned, qua the same recovery was ordered from pension and has been recovered. However, learned counsel fairly admitted before us that as far as the period of overstay is concerned, certainly the respondent continued to occupy the official accommodation even after her retirement and, therefore, the second part of the order dated 08.11.2016 directing recovery of Rs. 14,113/- (as indicated at Sl. No. 6 of the order dated 15.12.2016) and Rs. 3,15,000/- (as indicated at Sl No. 3 of the order dated 15.12.2016) is valid and the respondent is ready to pay not only the said amount of money but also electricity charges of Rs. 30,384/- and water bill of Rs. 516/-, as indicated at Sl. Nos. 4 and 5 of the order dated 15.12.2016.
9. Reliance has been placed on the record of inquiry proceedings to submit that no punishment was awarded to the respondent qua the same charge of F.M.A. and H.R.A., and therefore, in so far as the sums mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 of the order dated 15.12.2016 or in the second last paragraph of the order dated 08.11.2016 are concerned, the respondent is not liable to pay the same and, therefore, to that extent, the orders impugned before the Tribunal are unsustainable.
10. We have considered the submissions made before us and have perused the material available on record.
11. The facts of the case are not in dispute and, therefore, the Court has to examine as to what sums the respondent is liable to pay and what not. The entire recovery against the respondent is in a tabular depiction contained in the order dated 15.12.2016, impugned before the Tribunal. The said table is quoted herein below:-
dze la[;k
en
olwy dh tkus okyh jkfk
edku fdjk;k HkRrk
: 239342/-
,Q ,e ,
: 198215/-
edku fdjk;k ekdZsV jsV ij
: 315000/-
fctyh fcy
: 30484/-
Ikkuh fcy
: 516/-
YkkbZlsal Qhl
: 14113/-
dqy olwyh ;ksX; jkfk
: 797670/-
12. The period qua which the aforesaid sums have been computed, stands reflected in the order dated 08.11.2016 impugned before the Tribunal and relevant extract of the same is quoted herein under:-
The Regional Office, Kanpur vide letter dated 70086/Adm-III/RO/Kanpur/Misc./ EPFO dated 30.04.2013 has intimated that an amount of Rs. 2,39,342/- has been paid to her towards House Rent Allowance. Accordingly as per above rule amount has to be recovered from Smt. Renuka Sharma, SS (Retd.).
Smt. Renuka Sharma, SS (Retd.) was allotted staff quarter A-2 at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Meerut. She has retained the quarters even after her superannuation. Accordingly as per Rule-SR317-B-11 an amount of Rs. 14,113/- on account of License fee for the period from April, 2013 to November, 2013 is to be recovered. For the period from December, 2013 to November, 2016 an amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- towards house rent at market rate has to be recovered.
13. A bare perusal of the aforesaid would reveal that in so far as the H.R.A. and F.M.A. are concerned, the sums are respectively, Rs. 2,39,342/- and Rs. 1,98,215/-. Once it is found that payment/receipt of H.R.A. and F.M.A. formed subject matter of inquiry proceedings vide two separate office memoranda and, by two separate orders dated 04.10.2016, charge qua wrongful receipt of H.R.A. was dropped having found no concealment on the part of the respondent in that regard, the respondent was awarded punishment qua F.M.A. by imposition of penalty of 10% cut in pension for one year.
14. It is not in dispute that while dropping the charge of concealment qua H.R.A., no recovery was ordered and the respondent has suffered 10% cut in pension as a measure of penalty imposed on her in relation to charge qua F.M.A. In this view of the matter, recovery of Rs. 2,39,342/- towards H.R.A. and that of Rs. 1,98,215/- towards F.M.A. is found to be unsustainable and, therefore, item Nos. 1 and 2 indicated in the table quoted above have to be scored off from the recovery against the respondent.
15. In so far as item Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly admitted that the same were worked out as a result of overstay by the respondent in the official accommodation after her retirement and since the respondents counsel admits the liability of the respondent to pay the same, inclusion thereof in the total recovery is otherwise also found to be justified on facts, inasmuch as after retirement, the respondent was not entitled to retain possession of the official accommodation.
16. In view of the above discussion, we find that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the entire recovery by applying the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and should have carefully examined the material available on record as to the bifurcation of the recovery and the period for which the recovery was ordered. Having not done so, we find that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttrakhand and others: (2012) 8 SCC 417 and, therefore, we are inclined to modify the order passed by the Tribunal.
17. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part.
18. The order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that from the recovery ordered by the appellant against the respondent by order dated 15.12.2016, Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, recovery to the tune of Rs. 2,39,342/- towards house rent allowance and Rs. 1,98,215/- towards fixed medical allowance is quashed. The respondent would be entitled to receive the balance amount of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, i.e. 13.10.2023. The amount of interest has been restricted from the date of order passed by the Tribunal as the respondent has been found liable to make payment of the house rent at market rate for the period after her retirement along with electricity and water charges and license fee, whereby contributing to the delay in making payment of the amount of gratuity.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
October 10, 2025
AKShukla/-
