Telangana High Court
The Commissioner Of Police vs A. Chandra Shekar on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
and
The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
Writ Appeal No.64 of 2021
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present appeal is arising out of Order
dated 24.12.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8942 of 2018.
2. The facts of the case reveal that respondent
No.1/employee has attained the age of superannuation on
31.08.2017 as Sub Inspector of Police and after his
retirement, an order was passed in the matter of pay fixation
and consequential recovery to the tune of Rs.5,04,553/- was
made. As it was recovery in respect of Class-III employee
that too, after retirement, the learned Single Judge, keeping in
view the judgment delivered in the case of State of Punjab
and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc1., has
quashed the recovery and directed the
appellants/Department to refund the amount.
3. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the
employee was not at fault in the matter of erroneous pay
fixation and it was the mistake of the Department, on
(2015) 4 SCC 334
account of which, the employee has received more
emoluments than his entitlement. The issue of recovery in
respect of retired employee was considered by the Apex
Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana
and others vs. Jagdev Singh2. Honble Supreme Court,
after taking into account the judgment delivered in the case
of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) etc. (1 supra), has laid down the following
situation where recovery by the employer would be
impermissible. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:
"10. In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) etc., 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.
Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006 dt.29.07.2016
(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." (emphasis supplied)."
4. Aforesaid judgment makes it very clear that recovery
from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV cannot
be made.
5. In the present case, the employee in question is a Class-
III employee. There was no misrepresentation on the part of
the employee in the matter of pay fixation. The recovery is
bound to cause undue hardship to him and the excess
amount has been paid to him for a period in excess of five
years before the recovery order was issued.
6. Resultantly. this Court is of the considered opinion that
the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing recovery.
Therefore, the amount recovered shall be refunded back
positively within sixty days to respondent No.1/employee.
If the amount is not refunded within sixty days from today,
the same shall carry interest @ 5% p.a., from the date of
recovery till it is refunded to respondent No.1/employee.
However, pay fixation made by the appellants/Department is
upheld.
7. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications, pending
if any, stand dismissed.
_______________________
Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ
____________________
A. Rajasheker Reddy, J
08.11.2021
lur
