Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Shri Hoshiar Singh on 19 October, 2023
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: October 19, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 13882/2023, & CM APPLS. 54901-54902/2023
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nikhil Palli, Advocate.
versus
SHRI HOSHIAR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated February 13,
2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi ('Tribunal', for short) in OA No. 363/2022, whereby the Tribunal has
allowed the OA filed by respondent herein by stating in paragraphs 4 and 5
as under:
"4. After considering the facts as stated, this Tribunal is
of the view that the case of the applicant is covered by the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) in civil
Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.11684 of2012). Wherein it has been held that:
"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
herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the
employers, would be impermissible in law:
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.10.2023
17:28:33
(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."
5. Since the applicant is retired from service his case
falls under clause (C), this Tribunal is of the considered
view that the respondents shall refund the money to the
applicant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt
of copy of this order."
2. The submission of Mr. Palli, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is that the grant of 3rd MACP to the respondent was bona fide
mistake, which the respondent was not entitled to and the petitioners are
within their right to recover the amount by correcting their mistake.
3. Suffice to state, the 3rd MACP was granted to the respondent on July
29, 2011 and the benefits granted were sought to be recovered by the
petitioners in the year 2018, i.e. after more than 7 years. The judgment of
Supreme Court dated December 18, 2014 in the case of State of Punjab vs.
Rafiq Masih & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, is very clear and has been rightly
relied upon by the Tribunal for allowing the O.A.
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.10.2023
17:28:33
4. We are of the view that the only submission made by Mr. Palli to
justify the recovery is untenable. The petition is without any merit, the same
is dismissed. Pending applications are dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
OCTOBER 19, 2023/R
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.10.2023
17:28:33
