Manipur High Court
The Principal Accountant General (A&E) vs Shri K. Yangla on 19 March, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.03.24 17:06:39 +05'30'
Page |1
Item No. 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No. 37 of 2024
Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019
The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
...Appellant/Respondents No.5
in the Writ Petition
-Versus-
1. Shri K. Yangla, aged about 67 years old, S/o (L) K.
Vakham, a resident of Halang Village, P.O. & P.S.
Ukhrul, District Ukhrul, Manipur - 795142.
..... Respondent/Petitioner
in the Writ Petition
2. The State of Manipur through Chief Secretary-cum-
Secretary(Home), Manipur, Govt. of Manipur, Old
Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Manipur,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Ukhrul District,
Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, District
Ukhrul, Manipur - 795142.
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |2
5. The Under Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of
Manipur, New Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
District Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
.... Proforma Respondents/
Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
in the writ petition.
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
For the Appellant :: Mr. S. Suresh, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Senior Advocate
Mr. M. Rustam, Advocate
Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Date of Hearing and
Judgment & Order :: 19.03.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
(D. Krishnakumar, C.J) :
Heard Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appears for the
appellant; Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
M. Rustam, learned counsel and Mr. W. Niranjit, learned Deputy
Government Advocate, appear for the respondents.
2. The intra court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant challenging the order of the writ court thereby allowing the
writ petition filed by the respondents herein, requiring proceeding
initiated upon the appellant.
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |3
3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ
petitioner submits that pursuant to the DE, the petitioner was awarded
major penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect for a
period of 3 (three) years from the date of his suspension from service
in the year 2006.
4. The Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 which
came into effect from 01.01.2006 for payment of revised pay of scale
from 01.04.2010 had been notified on 01.01.2006. As per the
aforesaid Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010, the
respondent police department herein were allowed to fix the revised
pay from 01.01.2006 by order dated 26.08.2010 pursuant to the
decision taken by the respondent No. 1 an undertaking declaration
was opted by the respondent police department for payment of revised
pay scale to the petitioner by stating that if any excess payment is
made to the respondent the same shall be entitled for recovery from
the respondent herein.
5. Therefore, according to the appellant, required
proceeding has been initiated by the appellant to recover the aforesaid
excess amount to the respondent herein till required proceeding and
the said required proceeding was challenged before this Court in
WP(C) No. 112 of 2019.
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |4
6. The appellant has strongly relied upon the Undertaking
Declaration Form submitted by the respondent No.1 herein that at any
excess amount is paid, the same to be recovered from the respondent
No. 1 herein and since such undertaking is given, now the respondent
cannot take a different counter statement and challenge the aforesaid
recovery proceeding and therefore, the aforesaid aspect was not
properly considered by the writ court in proper perspective. Therefore,
the said order is liable to be set aside.
7. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent No. 1 has strongly objected the contention raised
by the appellant that the aforesaid undertaking declaration form relied
upon by the appellant which has been obtained at the time of
retirement of the respondent No. 1 herein. He also relied upon the
reply affidavit filed by the respondent at page 142 in para 5 of the
appeal memo wherein it is clearly contended that the
petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein was forced to put his signature at
time of his retirement and therefore, the required proceeding initiated
by the appellant is after the retirement of the respondent No.1 herein
and further states that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab -vs- Rafiq Masih
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 which according to them is, if any
proceeding is initiated after a period of 5 years, the same is liable to
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |5
be set aside and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly
appreciated the case of the respondent herein and rejecting the
contention of the appellant.
8. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
9. The point for consideration in the instant appeal is
whether the undertaking declaration form furnished by the appellant
department which has been submitted by the respondent herein at the
time of implementation of revised pay of scale.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the aforesaid undertaking was submitted by the
respondent/employees at the time of the revised scale of pay and a
copy of the declaration form is placed before this Court and we also
perused the form submitted before this Court where it has been stated
that no date has been mentioned in the said declaration form and also
reason for deduction is also not clearly stated by the appellant
department. The appellant department has not clearly given the
details of the date on which the respondent signed in the declaration
form and the said contention of the appellant is to be accepted and
same is liable to be set aside.
11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that when the said declaration form has not been
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |6
obtained by the appellant department at the time of the revised pay
scale then the question of refunding of excess amount would not arise
and further states that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq
Masih (supra) in para 18 clause (ii) and (iii) states as follows:
"(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."
Therefore, the learned senior counsel submits that
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra)
squarely covers to the facts of this case on hand. He also, relies upon
the decision of this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 574 of 2021
(Kangabam Tomba Devi Vs. Principal Accountant General and
Ors.) at paragraphs 26 and 31 which are extracted as follows :-
"26. The consent/self-declaration to the effect that the
petitioner undertook to deduct overpayment of pay and
allowance is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner signed in a letter dated 28.9.2011
prepared by the Zonal Education Officer addressed to the
Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) thereby consenting to
deduct overpayment resulted in her pay and allowances on
account of placement to higher scale of pay so as to enable her
to meet her present serious financial hardships.
27. .............
28. ..............................
29. ..........................
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |7
30................................
31. In the result,
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent authorities are directed to refund the
gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount of
Rs.3,11,847/- to the petitioner, which was deducted from
the retirement gratuity account and dearness relief
account of the petitioner.
(iii) The said exercise is directed to be completed within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
(iv) No costs."
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the aforesaid order passed by the writ court was
challenged by the department State Government before the Division
Bench and the aforesaid order was confirmed by the Division Bench
of this Court and again the department has challenged the order of the
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 126 of 2022 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4798/2023. By
order dated 20.03.2023, the aforesaid SLP came to be dismissed and
therefore, the senior counsel for the respondents submits that the case
of the respondent herein is also the same and identical case as the
aforementioned SLP. This Court also held that said proceedings is
impermissible in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4798/2023 and we are also
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |8
satisfied with the said contention of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent and there is no merit in the present
appeal. Therefore, we are not accepting the aforesaid contention of
the appellant and hence, there is no merit in this case.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of
Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in
(2016) 14 SCC 267 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the incumbent officer has furnished the undertaking while opting for
revised pay scale that he would refund the excess amount paid and
thus, was bound by undertaking and therefore, confirmed the
recovery and therefore, passed by the department and entitled for
recovery of excess amount by the employees concerned.
15. Therefore, there is no denial of the aforesaid rejoinder
affidavit filed by the respondents herein in the appeal as well as the
instructions. The appellant department has not placed the documents
that would satisfy the said declaration form submitted by the
respondent herein at the time of implementation of the revised pay
scale.
16. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the counsel for the
appellant does not render any assistance in support of his contention
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
Page |9
and view of the foregoing reasons stated, the instant appeal stands
dismissed.
17. In fine, the order of the writ court is confirmed and
consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed with no cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WA No. 37 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019)
