Bombay High Court
Pramod M. Pophali vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Steel, New ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7879-DB
wp 4016-2022.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4016/2022
Pramod s/o Moreshwarrao Pophali
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation- Retired as Assistant
General Manager (Purchase)
R/oShivansh Heights, Plot No.7/8,
Fulsunge layout, Near Durga Mata
Mandir, Indraprastha Nagar,
Nagpur- 440022.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Steel, Udhyog Bhavan,
New Delhi-110107
2. The Chairman,
Steel Authority of India Limited,
Ispat Bhavan, P.O. Box 3049,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. General Manager,
Steel Authority of India Limited,
Chandrapur Ferro Alloy Plant,
Mul Road, Chandrapur-442401.
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for petitioner
Shri C.J. Dhumane, Advocate for respondent No.1
Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wp 4016-2022.odt 2/8
CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ..
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 07.08.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 12.08.2025
JUDGMENT (PER SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. By this petition, petitioner seeking quashment and
setting aside the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by respondent
No.3, directing the recovery of Rs.4,24,960/- from the pension
corpus and subsequent orders dated 01.09.2021, passed by
respondent No.2 and communicated by respondent No.3 on
27.10.2021 rejecting the appeal against the impugned action of
recovery, being arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.
3. The brief facts of the petition can be summarized as
under:
On 16.08.1979, the petitioner was appointed initially as a
Spectro Meter Analyst with the Public Sector MEL, which was
financed by SICOM. On merger of the said Company, the
respondent No.2 Public Sector Unit, the services were absorbed
along with the consequential benefits of the earlier service. On
29.03.2008, the respondent No.2 amended the Leave Rules
whereby the executives working under it, were entitled for Leave
Encashment under the head of Earned Leave and HPL (Half Pay
Leave) of 240 to 300 days and implemented with effect from
01.04.2008. These rules have not been amended till date. The
petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2013 as an Assistant General
Manager from the office of respondent No.3, on completion of age
of superannuation. The petitioner was paid with the dues arising
out of the service i.e. the benefit of retirement, including Leave
Encashment and HPL up-to 300 days on the date of his retirement.
4. On 18.12.2013, respondent No.2 and 3 issued office
communication, whereby they sought to amend the rules, however,
pending final decision, the same was not implemented. As the
petitioner was not paid the pension corpus to be paid to the
executives as per the scheme, he enquired from the office and for
the first time, he was made aware by post in reply to application
under R.T.I. Act, that an amount of Rs.4,30,933/- has been
recovered from the pension scheme contribution of Rs.5,96,668/-
due and payable to him, on account of excess amount paid to the
petitioner for encashment. This information he received on
2.9.2020.
5. After repeated correspondence, the petitioner preferred
an appeal through PM Office against the impugned action of
recovery by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 15.9.2021. The said
grievance was forwarded to the respondent No.2 for decision and
consideration on sympathetic ground since the petitioner was
retired in the year 2013 and the amount was sought to be recovered
in the year 2020.
6. It is contention of the petitioner that respondent No.3
communicated the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 of rejection of
appeal passed by respondent No.2, justifying the impugned
arbitrary and illegal action of recovery from the pension corpus. The
impugned order of the respondent No.2 making it retrospectively
applicable in absence of amendment to the Leave Encashment Rules
and approval from the Board of Directors as well as from the
competent authorities.
7. As against this learned Counsel for respondent No.3
submitted that excess payment was mistakenly made because under
the Rules, the petitioner could not have been paid against earned
leave for the period of more than 300 days. The petitioner was
entitled to get encashment of 268.5 earned leave and 31.5 days half
pay leave, totally amounting to 300 days. It is denied that the
petitioner was entitled for encashment of about 420 days as per
Rules and he was allowed encashment of 220 days as alleged. The
deduction has been made to rectify the mistake of over payment to
the petitioner and it has been deducted from the available funds.
There is no unreasonableness or illegality.
8. We have heard both the parties, considered the
documents placed on record.
9. The learned Counsel for petitioner relied on the State
of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih, AIR 2015 Supreme Court 696.
Admittedly, it was not the mistake of the petitioner. The recovery,
which is sought, is of the year 2013. In view of the judgment State
of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court laid
down some principles governing recovery of such employees to
whom excess payment is made in para 12 of the said judgment, it is
observed thus:
"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 hereinabove, 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."
10. Admittedly, recovery from employees is made in the
instant matter about excess payment order of recovery is issued
after a period of five years. Admittedly, it is not the mistake on the
part of the petitioner nor there was any case of misrepresentation
or fraud. As such impugned order dated 02.09.2020 passed by
respondent No.3 and order dated 01.09.2021 passed by respondent
No.2 are liable to be set aside being unjustified, illegal and
unsustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 01.09.2021 passed by respondent
No.2 and communicated by respondent No.3 on 27.10.2021 and
the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 are hereby
quashed and set aside.
iii) The respondents are directed to immediately release the
amount of Rs.4,24,960/- to the petitioner.
11. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/08/2025 17:32:25
