Chattisgarh High Court
Banarsi Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4177 of 2021
Banarsi Prasad S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Aged About 63 Years Retd.
Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Kunkuri, Block Mainpat, District - Surguja,
R/o Village Vandana, Post Vandana, Tahsil Mainpat, District - Surguja
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District-
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. District Education Officer Surguja, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
3. Block Education Officer Mainpat, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
4. Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Ambikapur, District
Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate
For State : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
11/08/2021
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of recovery
initiated by the authorities vide order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure
P/1), whereby the respondents have ordered for recovering an
amount of Rs.1,85,129/- from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was working under the
respondents as a Headmaster at the Govt. Middle School, at Kunkuri,
District Surguja and he stood retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2020.
Till the date of retirement there was no order of recovery issued by the
respondents. After more than one year from the date of retirement, the
respondents have now issued the impugned order Annexure P/1
ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,85,129/- from the retiral
dues payable to the petitioner. The said alleged recovery is said to be
on the basis of some erroneous fixation of pay made to the petitioner
w.e.f. 12.05.1999 to 30.06.2020. According to the petitioner, he is a
retired personnel and that there was no misrepresentation or fraud
played by the petitioner in receiving the alleged excess payment. That
the same has been paid to the petitioner erroneously on account of
the fault on the part of the officers in the Department, and for which
the petitioner cannot be held liable for recovery.
3. According to the petitioner, under the bonafide belief of having
received the same justifiedly, the petitioner has consumed the same,
and now the respondents would not be permitted to recover the same.
According to the petitioner, the authorities could have carried out the
rectification part, but they could not have initiated any recovery. The
further contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order also is
bad in law for the reason that the alleged excess payment made to the
petitioner is of a period long back and which makes it impermissible
under law for recovery after a considerable period of time in terms of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. The State counsel on the other hand submits that the recovery is only
in respect of the excess payment made to the petitioner on account of
wrong fixation of pay provided to him, which the petitioner was
otherwise not legally entitled for and therefore the respondents had all
the rights to recover the same.
5. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Punjab and others
etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc." reported in 2015 AIR
SCW 501. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the said matter
has laid down certain situations under which the recovery is totally
impermissible under law. The situations as envisaged in the said
judgment are as under :
"(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."
6. If we consider the situations, under which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held recoveries to be impermissible under law and compare the
facts of the present case, it would clearly reflect that the case of the
petitioner would squarely fall within the situations as envisaged in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rafiq Masih"
(supra).
7. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned order of recovery (Annexure P/1) dated 30.06.2021
ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,85,129/- is erroneous, bad
in law and impermissible under law and the same deserves to be and
is accordingly set-aside/quashed.
8. The respondents are directed to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner
without initiating any recovery. It is made clear that the indulgence of
this Court is only to the extent of recovery, the respondents would be
at liberty to rectify the erroneous fixation provided to the petitioner
without making any recovery. If the entire amount has already been
deducted by the respondent authorities, the said amount should be
forthwith released to the petitioner within an outer limit of 90 days from
the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Ved
