Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Singh Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23081
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3759 of 2018
Jitendra Singh Baghel S/o Late Shri Gulab Singh Baghel Aged About 63
Years R/o Infront Of Hotel U.S.A Akashganga, Nagar, Satna, Madhya
Pradesh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources
Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Engineer- In Chief, Water Resources Department, Civil Lines Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Basin, Water Resource Department, Bilaspur,
Behind Composite Building Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Circle Raigarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pensions Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate
For Res./State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
01.07.2024
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the
following prayer(s):-
"10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the
records from the respective offices of the respondents.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash
the order dated 12.04.2018(Annexure P/1) by issuance of writ of
certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders and direction/directions.
10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to pay the petitioner his pension, gratuity and leave
encashment and all the consequential benefits, as per the last pay
drawn by the petitioner, by issuance of writ of mandamus or any
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23081
other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions.
10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other
ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10.5. Cost of the petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Divisional
Superintendent in the Irrigation Department and he retired from services on
31.12.2017. The pay of the petitioner was revised in the year 1997 and a higher pay
scale was granted to the petitioner but later on, a mistake regarding pay fixation
was detected and notice to this effect was given to the petitioner on 09.03.2019,
which was replied to by the petitioner on 07.04.2016, thereafter, the impugned
order of recovery of Rs.1,94,819/- was passed on 12.04.2018 i.e after the
retirement of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the
recovery was passed on 12.04.2018 after the retirement of the petitioner. He further
submitted that the mistake was detected by the department after about 20 years. He
also submitted that the petitioner is a retired government servant and it would be
very difficult for him to refund the amount, as the amount of recovery of Rs.
1,94,819/-, as assessed by the department, is excessive. In support of his
submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered
in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer),
[(2015) 4 SCC 334].
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ruparel, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State argued that due to a mistake, the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at a
higher scale in the year 1997 and the same was detected in the year 2016. He
further submitted that a notice in this regard was issued to the petitioner on
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23081
09.03.2016, which was replied to by the petitioner on 07.04.2016. He also
submitted that due steps were taken by the department within a specific
time; therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. From a perusal of documents and pleadings made therein, it is quite vivid
that:-
(i) the salary of the petitioner was revised in the year 1997 and it was
wrongly fixed at a higher pay scale;
(ii) the petitioner retired from services on 31.12.2017. Notice of the recovery
of Rs.1,94,819/- with regard to excess payment was issued to the petitioner
in the year 2016 i.e. after 19 years; and,
(iii) It would be iniquitous for the petitioner to refund the amount after
retirement.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering this issue in the case of
Rafiq Masih (supra) 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 employees, 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."
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23081
8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), in the opinion
of this Court, the impugned order of recovery dated 12.04.2018 is liable to be and
is hereby quashed.
9. The amount, if any, recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner along with
interest @ 8% per annum from the date of recovery, till its actual payment.
10. In view of the above, the instant petition is hereby allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
amita
