Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur vs Shri A.S. Ringam on 19 July, 2024
Digitally signed
LUCY by LUCY
GURUMAYUM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
GURUM Date:
2024.07.19
AT IMPHAL
AYUM 15:03:14
+05'30' WA No. 10 of 2020
1. The State of Manipur, through the Commissioner
(Revenue), Government of Manipur, Imphal,
Manipur.
2. The Joint Secretary, (Pension Cell) Government of
Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.
.... Applicants
-Versus-
1. Shri A.S. Ringam, aged about 61 years, S/o A.S.
Yarrei, resident of Shiroy Village, P.O & P.S. and
District Ukhrul, Manipur.
.... Principal Respondent in the Writ Appeal
2. The Accountant General (A&E) Manipur, Imphal,
Manipur.
.... Performa Respondents in the Writ Appeal
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
For the appellants : Mr. M. Rarry, Special State Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Senior Advocate
Mr. S. Samarjeet, Senior PCCG
Date of hearing : 07.05.2024
Date of order : 19.07.2024
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
(Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J)
[1] Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned Special State Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants; Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1;
and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 2.
[2] The present writ appeal has been filed by the State
of Manipur under IV-A 3 (2) of the Manipur High Court Rule
against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2019
passed in W.P.(C) No. 282 of 2014 by the Hon'ble Single Judge
praying for:
(i) Passing an order admitting the present appeal
for hearing and call for the records of the
case;
(ii) Passing an order allowing the present appeal
by quashing and setting aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 passed
in WP(C) No. 282 of 2014.
(iii) Passing any other order or order(s) or
direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the facts of the case, for meeting
the ends of justice.
[3] The above referred to W.P.(C) No. 282 of 2014 was
filed by the respondent No. 1/petitioner seeking direction on the
proforma respondent No. 2/third respondent to pay pension at
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 2
Rs. 5,390/- which is 50% of his last pay/emoluments in
pursuance with Rule 49(2) of the Manipur Civil Service Pension
Rule, 1977 with a further direction on the proforma respondent
No. 2/third respondent to pay the respondent no.1/petitioner of
his retirement gratuity at Rs. 2,76,770/- in pursuance with Rule
50(1)(a) of the Manipur Civil Service Pension Rule, 1977 by
refunding the deducted amount of Rs. 22,589/- to the
respondent No.1/petitioner.
[4] The case of the respondent No. 1/petitioner is that
he was initially appointed as a Lambu at the Office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Manipur East District on 03.06.1980 on regular
basis and after rendering more than 30 years of regular,
superannuated on 31.10.2012. After retirement, the Sub
Divisional Officer, who is the drawing officer of the respondent
No. 1/petitioner, prepared the last pay certificate and as per the
last pay certificate, his pay was fixed at Rs. 8,980/- with grade
pay of Rs. 1,800/-. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer
submitted pension papers of the respondent No.1/petitioner to
the Joint Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur for
perusal and onward submission to the office of the proforma
respondent No. 2/ third respondent on 04.02.2013. Further, on
02.07.2013, the Under Secretary (Pension Cell) forwarded the
pension papers to the office of the third respondent. On
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 3
25.09.2013, the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension Cell) of the
Office of the proforma respondent No. 2/third respondent issued
the gratuity payment order in favour of the respondent No.
1/petitioner to the District Treasury Officer, wherein the
respondent No. 1/petitioner was given only an amount of Rs.
2,45,975/- as his retirement gratuity and by the said gratuity
payment order, an amount of Rs. 22,589/- was deducted from
his retirement gratuity of Rs. 2,68,564/-. On 04.10.2013, the
proforma respondent No. 2/third respondent issued pension
payment order in favour of the respondent No. 1/petitioner for
an amount of Rs. 5,330/- as his monthly pension to the office of
the District Treasury, Ukhrul, Manipur. It is averred that the Sub
Divisional Officer, Chingai, prepared the pension, retirement
gratuity etc. in respect of the respondent No. 1/petitioner
wherein his monthly pension was prepared at the rate of Rs.
5,390.- and his retirement gratuity was fixed at the rate of Rs.
2,76,770/-.
[5] The grievance of the respondent No.1/petitioner
was that a sum of Rs. 22,589/- was deducted from the
retirement gratuity without giving any reason for deduction of
the same. No reason has been recorded except the word
overpayment in the gratuity payment order dated 25.09.2013
and the recovery order was issued in violation of natural justice
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 4
and therefore, the same was liable to be set aside. According to
the respondent No. 1/petitioner, he did not commit any act of
fraud or misrepresentation to enjoy any financial benefit from
the Government. Therefore, the proforma respondent No. 2/third
respondent was required to be directed to refund the deducted
amount of Rs. 22,589/- to him which was deducted by the
proforma respondent No. 2/third respondent as overpayment of
pay from the retirement gratuity of the respondent No.
1/petitioner.
[6] Accordingly the respondent No. 1/petitioner
submitted that the amount of pension of a retired Government
Servant who retired from service in accordance with above said
Pension Rules shall be calculated at 50% of emolument or
average emoluments whichever is more beneficial to him.
However, the proforma respondent No. 2/third respondent in
violation of Rule 49(2) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, had
prepared the monthly pension at the reduced rate i.e. at Rs.
5,230/- per month instead of his actual entitlement of monthly
pension at Rs. 5,390/- per month. In such facts, the respondent
No. 1/petitioner filed the above referred to W.P.(C) No. 282 of
2014 praying for directing the proforma respondent No. 2/third
respondent to give his monthly pension in conformity with the
Rule 49(2) of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1997.
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 5
[7] The learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur
after minute examination of the service book in respect of the
respondent No. 1/petitioner by the Office of the Accountant
General of Manipur, the wrong fixation of pay in respect of the
respondent No. 1/petitioner was detected and they rectified the
fixation of pay under ROP 1990, thereby making recovery from
retirement gratuity of the respondent No. 1/petitioner. He further
admitted that the basic pay of respondent No. 1/petitioner has
been reduced on the day of retirement with the recasting of pay
fixation under ROP, 1990. It is stated that the pay of the
respondent No. 1/petitioner as on 01.06.1995 was Rs. 899/- in
the scale of pay Rs. 775-1025 under ROP 1990. On coming to
the new pay structure under ROP 1999, his pay should be fixed
at Rs. 2,790/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 2610-3580/-, however, it
was wrongly fixed at Rs. 2,850/- by the office of the Sub
Divisional Officer, Chingai, in collusion with the respondent No.
1/petitioner. Therefore, overpayment was caused due to wrong
fixation of pay under ROP 1999 and its subsequent ROPs. The
office of the proforma respondent No. 2/third respondent
calculated the pensionary benefits of the respondent No.
1/petitioner under Rule (2) of the MCS (Pension) Rules on the
basis of the corrected pay and overpayment of Rs. 22,589/- was
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 6
detected and the same was recovered from his retirement
gratuity. Therefore, there is no violation of the pension Rules as
well as fundamental rights of the respondent No. 1/petitioner.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the above referred writ petition.
[8] Further, the learned counsel for the proforma
respondent No. 2/ third respondent submitted that after coming
to know about the wrong fixation, the pensionary benefits of the
respondent No. 1/petitioner was calculated under Rule 49(2) of
MCS (Pension) Rules on the basis of corrected pay and
overpayment of Rs. 22,589/- was detected and the same was
also recovered from his retirement gratuity as per the consent
given by the respondent No. 1/petitioner. Therefore, this is no
violation of pension Rules and hence prayed for allowing the
proforma respondent No. 2 to recover the excess payment made
to the respondent no.1.
In support of his case, the proforma respondent
No. 2/third respondent relied upon the following Judgment:
1. (1991) 4 SCC 139 - [State of U.P. vs.
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.]
"41. ....."A decision passes sub-silentio, in the
technical sense that has come to be attached to that
phrase, when the particular point of law involved in
the decision is not perceived by the Court or present
to its mind." (Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edn.,
p.153). In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd.
v. Bremith Ltd. the Court did not feel bound by
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 7
earlier decision as it was rendered 'without any
argument, without reference to the crucial words of
the rule and without any citation of the authority'. It
was approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation
of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur. The Bench held that,
'precedents sub-silentio and without argument are
of no moment'. The Courts thus have taken recourse
to this principle for relieving from injustice
perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which
is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it
proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be
deemed to be a law declared to have a binding
effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity
and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But
that which escapes in the judgment without any
occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v.
Union Territory of Pondicherry it was observed, 'it is
trite to say that a decision is binding not because of
its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the
principles, laid down therein'. Any declaration or
conclusion arrived without application of mind or
preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to
be declaration of law or authority of a general
nature binding as a precedent....."
2. (2002) 3 SCC 496 - [Haryana Financial
Corporation vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills]
"21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or
different fact may make a world of difference
between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases
by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not
proper.
22. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in
the matter of applying precedents have become
locus classicus: (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT)
"19. ... Each case depends on its own
facts and a close similarity between one
case and another is not enough because
even a single significant detail may alter
the entire aspect. In deciding such cases,
one should avoid the temptation to
decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by
matching the colour of one case against
the colour of another. To decide,
therefore, on which side of the line a
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 8
case falls, the broad resemblance to
another case is not at all decisive."
"Precedent should be followed
only so far as it marks the path of justice,
but you must cut the dead wood and trim
off the side branches else you will find
yourself lost in thickets and branches. My
plea is to keep the path to justice clear of
obstructions which could impede it."
3. (2005) 3 SCC 409 - [Karnataka State Road
Transport
Corporation vs. S.G. Kotturappa]
"24. ......The question as to what extent, principles
of natural justice are required to be complied with
would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in
each case. The principles of natural justice cannot
be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any
straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice
are furthermore not required to be complied with
when it will lead to an empty formality........."
4. (2007) 13 SCC 352 - [Andhra Pradesh Social
Welfare Residential Educational Institutions
Vs Pindiga Sridhar]
"7. ..........By now, it is well-settled principle of law
that the principles of natural justice cannot be
applied in a straitjacket formula. Their application
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. To sustain the complaint of the violation of
principles of natural justice one must establish that
he was prejudiced for non-observance of the
principles of natural justice........ In such admitted
facts, there was no necessity of issuing show-cause
notice to him. The view of the High Court that
termination suffers from the non-observance of the
principles of natural justice is, therefore, clearly
erroneous. In our view, in the given facts of this
case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to
the respondent. The respondent could not have
improved his case even if a show-cause notice was
issued to him.
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 9
5. (2016) 14 SCC 267 - [High Court of Punjab &
Haryana v. Jagdev Singh]
"11. The principle enunciated in Proposition
(ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the
present case. In the present case, the officer to
whom the payment was made in the first instance
was clearly placed on notice that any payment found
to have been made in excess would be required to
be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking
while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound
by the undertaking."
[9] In the above referred to W.P.(C) No. 282 of 2014,
the Hon'ble Single Judge passed impugned order dated
19.12.2019, relevant portion of order reads as follows;
"21. In the result -
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order of recovery dated 25.09.2023 passed by
the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Office of the
Accountant General (A&E) Manipur, is set aside.
(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to refund
the deducted amount of Rs. 22,589/- to the
petitioner, within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) The respondent authorities are directed to prepare
the monthly pension of the Petitioner by following
the provision of Rule 49 (2) of the Manipur Civil
Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 at the rate of Rs.
5,390/- per month and pay the same to the
petitioner, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this with no order as to
costs."
[10] Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2019,
the State appellants has preferred the present appeal. The
appellants contended that the impugned judgment suffers from
material illegality as the impugned judgment has been passed
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 10
without considering the entire documents and material filed by
the respondents in the said writ petition. As per the appellants,
the Ld. Single Judge has totally failed to consider the aspect and
settled position of law in respect to the present case. He further
contended that it is a settled principle of law that an action of
the State ordering a recovery from an employee would be in
order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous, to the extent that
the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful,
more improper and more unwarranted than the corresponding
right of the employer to recover the amount or in other words,
till such time, as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary
effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law.
In support of his case, the appellant relied upon
the following judgment;
1. (2012) 8 SCC 417 - [Chandi Prasad Uniyal &
Ors. v. State of Uttarkhand & Ors.]
"7. We may also indicate that when the
revised pay scale/pay fixation was fixed on the basis
of the 5th Central Pay Scale, a condition was
superimposed which reads as follows:
"In the condition of irregular/wrong pay
fixation, the institution shall be
responsible for recovery of the amount
received in excess from the
salary/pension."
The appellants are further bound by that
condition as well. The facts, mentioned
hereinabove, would clearly demonstrate that the
excess salary was paid due to irregular/wrong pay
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 11
fixation by the District Education Officer concerned.
The question is whether the appellants can retain
the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong
pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation
or fraud on their part, as contended.
8. We are of the considered view, after
going through the various judgments cited at the
Bar, that this Court has not laid down any principle
of law that only if there is misrepresentation or fraud
on the part of the recipients of the money in getting
the excess pay, the amount paid due to
irregular/wrong fixation of pay be recovered.
14. We are concerned with the excess
payment of public money which is often described
as "taxpayers' money" which belongs neither to the
officers who have effected overpayment nor to the
recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud
or misrepresentation is being brought in such
situations. The question to be asked is whether
excess money has been paid or not, may be due to
a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess
payment of public money by the government
officers may be due to various reasons like
negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc.
because money in such situation does not belong to
the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise
where both the payer and the payee are at fault,
then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being
effected in many situations without any authority of
law and payments have been received by the
recipients also without the authority of law can
always be recovered barring few exceptions of
extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in
such situations law implies an obligation on the
payee to repay the money, otherwise it would
amount to unjust enrichment."
[11] The learned counsel for the principal respondent/
petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1/petitioner was
serving as Lambu, a mere Grade-IV/Group-D post in the
Department of Revenue, Government of Manipur and retired
from his service upon reaching the age of superannuation on
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 12
31.10.2012. Vide order dated 25.09.2013, the office of the
Accountant General (A&E), Manipur issued the Gratuity Payment
Order in favour of the respondent No.1/petitioner wherein a sum
of Rs. 22,589/- was deducted from his total retirement Gratuity
of Rs. 2,68,564/- without any notice or calling for his objection,
in due compliance of the principles of natural justice. He further
submits that he didn't have the capacity to influence his higher
officials to enjoy the financial benefits, he simply enjoyed the
financial benefits given by his employer from time to time by
revising his scale of pay without any misrepresentation from his
side.
In support of his case, he has relied upon the
following judgment:
1. (2009) 3 SCC 475 - [Syed Abdul Qadir v. State
of Bihar -relevant para - 57, 58, 59]
"57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has
granted relief against recovery of excess payment of
emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount
was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or
fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such
excess payment was made by the employer by
applying a wrong principle for calculating the
pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular
interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently
found to be erroneous.
58. The relief against recovery is granted by
courts not because of any right in the employees,
but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve
the employees from the hardship that will be caused
if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is
proved that the employee had knowledge that the
payment received was in excess of what was due or
wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected
or corrected within a short time of wrong payment,
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 13
the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion,
courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any
particular case, order for recovery of the amount
paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana,
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India
v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J.
Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das
v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet
Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur.
59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has
been paid to the appellant teachers was not because
of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and
the appellants also had no knowledge that the
amount that was being paid to them was more than
what they were entitled to. It would not be out of
place to mention here that the Finance Department
had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a
bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment
made was the result of wrong interpretation of the
Rule that was applicable to them, for which the
appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the
whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence
and carelessness of the officials concerned of the
Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that
majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or
are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to
avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are
of the view that no recovery of the amount that has
been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should
be made."
2. (2015) 4 SCC 334 - [State of Punjab & 3 Ors
v. Rafiq Masih & Ors - para- 18]
"18. 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:
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 14
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to
Class III and Class IV service (or Group C
and Group D service)
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
employees who are due to retire within one
year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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.
3. (2016) 14 SCC 267 - [High Court of Punjab &
Haryana v. Jagdev Singh - para 10]
"10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, this
Court held that while it is not possible to postulate
all situations of hardship where payments have
mistakenly been made by an employer, in the
following situations, a recovery by the employer
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.
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 15
(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."
[12] We have heard the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and also examined the materials
placed before us in details. In the instant case, it is admitted
position of fact that the respondent No.1 (Principal respondent)
was appointed as Lambu on 03.06.1980 and retired from service
at the same post on 31.10.2012 on attaining the age of
superannuation.
But the appellant authority deducted/recovered a
sum of Rs. 22,589/- from the total amount entitled to the
respondent No. 1/petitioner as excess payment/overpayment.
[13] From the material placed before us, it is evident
that the respondent No.1 was appointed in the year 1980 on
regular basis as Lambu and retired in the same post in the year
2012 i.e. for 32 years rendered his service for the Govt. of
Manipur. Even after almost 20 years the appellants/respondents
failed to take initiative to modify or revoked the said impugned
statement dated 25.09.2013 issued by the Accountant General
on which basis a sum Rs. 22,589/- was recovered as excess
overpayment from the gratuity amount and dearness relief after
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 16
his retirement. In such situation, we are of considered view that
at this point of time no recovery can be made by the authorities
from the retiral benefits and other service benefits of the
petitioner in view of the settled principal of law laid down by the
Apex Court as well as by this Court. In this regard, we are relying
on the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
"State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) &
Ors." [(2015) 4 SCC 334] wherein after referring to a number of
its earlier judgments, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
as under:
"18. 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 the employees belonging to Class
III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D
service)
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
employees who are due to retire within one
year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 17
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."
The learned Apex Court laid down few guidelines
wherein recoveries of the employees would be impermissible in
law, such situations are: (i) recovery from the employees
belonging to Class III and Class-IV service (or Group-C and
Group-D service); (ii) recovery from the retired employees, or
the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the
order of recovery; and (iii) recovery from the employees, when
excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five
years, before the order of recovery is issued.
[14] In the instant case, it is undeniable fact that the
respondent No.1/petitioner holds Class - IV (Group-D) post from
the date of joining of his service till his retirement and since, any
alleged excess payment has been made decades back, we are of
the considered view that it is not permissible to make any
recovery from the retirement benefit of the petitioner on ground
of excess payment of pay and allowances in view of the principle
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reproduced herein
above.
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 18
[15] The jurisprudence relied upon by the appellant as
reproduced above are not applicable in the facts and circumstances
of the instant case.
[16] For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the
Hon'ble Single Judge rightly passed the impugned order wherein
the Hon'ble Single Judge set aside the impugned recovery order
dated 29.05.2013 whereby deduction of a sum Rs. 22,589/- was
made from the gratuity amount and dearness relief of the
respondent No. 1/petitioner with the direction to the appellants and
the respondent No. 2 to refund the deducted amount of Rs.
22,589/- to the respondent No. 1/petitioner.
[17] Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed with
direction to the appellants and respondent No. 2 to refund the
deducted amount of Rs. 22,589/- (Rupees twenty two thousand five
hundred and eighty nine) to the respondent No. 1/petitioner within
a period of 2 (two) months from the date receipt of a copy of this
order.
[18] Further the respondent authorities are directed to
prepare the monthly pension of the petitioner by following the
provision of Rule 49(2) of the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules,
1977 at the rate of Rs. 5390/- per month and pay the same to the
petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date receipt
of a copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Lucy
Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Page 19
