Poulus Horo vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 776 Jhar

                                   1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(S) No.4735 of 2009
                                -------

1. Poulus Horo

2. Chakradhar Biruly

3. Nuneshwar Soren

4. Subhash Chandra Singh

5. Rabindra Nath Biruly ... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Director Inspector General Wireless, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. Superintendent of Police, Department of Wireless, Jharkhand, Ranchi. ... ... Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner :Ms. Puja Agrawal, Adv. For the Res.State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, ..........

-------

11/18.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through

V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of

certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.02.09 issued vide

Memo No.232/09 and office order No.332/09 dated

20.03.09 issued vide Memo No. 838 passed by

Superintendent of Police Wireless Jharkhand Ranchi,

whereby and where under the respondents have ordered for

deduction of the entire amount of R.P.P. from 1.1.1996 and

further fixation of pay in the revised new pay scale by virtue

of 6th pay revision after deducting the amount paid by way

R.P.P. from 1.1.96.

(b) For issuance of writ in the nature of

mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the

amount deducted from 01.01.1996 to fix new pay scale

including the R.P.P. amount.

3. Ms. Puja Agrawal, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the issue involved in the instant

writ application is now no more res-integra that the R.P.P

amount; which was ordered to be recovered with effect from

1.1.1996 till the date of impugned order, is not sustainable

in the eye of law. She fairly submits that since all the

petitioners have retired; as such she is only concerned that

no recovery should be made as the R.P.P. amount has

already been paid to the petitioner long back with effect

from 1.1.1996 till 20.03.2009.

4. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the

respondent-State fairly submits that no recovery has been

done and referred to paragraph No.13 of the counter

affidavit wherein it is stated that as per the chart the

petitioners received R.P.P amount from 1.1.1996 to

30.1.2009 and their R.P.P amount was only withheld from

31.1.2009 subject to final verification of revised pay of

1996. It has been further stated that the R.P.P amount

already paid to these petitioners has not been recovered

from them as yet.

In this view of the matter, he submits that the

instant writ application may be disposed of by directing the

respondent not to recover the R.P.P. amount which has

already been paid to these petitioners as the issue has

already been settled by catena of judgments. Mr. Krishna

fairly referred the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in SLP (CVL) 029558 of 2009 dated 16.11.2009 and

submits that the stand of the State was rejected by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and it was directed that no recovery

should be made with respect to R.P.P. amount which has

already been paid.

5. Having regards to the facts of the case and

settled position of law that no R.P.P amount can be

recovered; the instant writ application is, hereby, allowed

and the impugned order as contained in Memo No.232/09

dated 10.02.09 and office order No.332/09 dated 20.03.09

as contained in Memo No. 838, passed by Superintendent

of Police, Wireless, Ranchi, are, hereby, quashed and set

aside to the extent that the entire R.P.P amount which was

paid from 1.1.1996 till 31.01.2009 shall not be recovered

from these petitioners; however, that will not affect to the

revised salary/pension of the petitioners in accordance

with law applicable for the time being enforced.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-