Kamal Kant Shukla vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6078 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 426/2015

Kamal Kant Shukla S/o Late Sh. Bhanu Ram Shukla, aged 61 yrs. Resident of Sursagar Talab, Near Barah Mahadev Mandir, Hanuman Hattha, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through he Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. The Joint Director, Pension & Pensioner's Welfare Department Bikaner.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar, AGC Mr. K. K. Bissa, AGC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

25/04/2022

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for

refund of the amount of Rs.5,62,555/- recovered from the

gratuity amount of the petitioner on the premise that the wrong

fixation was made and an excess amount had been paid to him.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is

squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in 2015(4) SCC 334; State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq

Masih (White Washer) & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

held as under:

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the

(2 of 2) [CW-426/2015]

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:

(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 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."

A bare perusal of the ratio as laid down in Ragiq Masih's

case makes it clear that the petitioner being Teacher Grade III

specifically falls within categories No. (i) & (ii) as mentioned above

and therefore, no recovery from him can be said to be permissible

in law.

In view of the same, the present writ petition is allowed and

the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.

5,62,555/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of the copy of the present order.

(REKHA BORANA),J 81-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)