R.Balraj Goud vs The State Of Telangana, And 5 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2306 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              WRIT PETITION No.18888 of 2019

ORDER :

Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of respondents in

recovering an amount of Rs.7,57,702/- from the retirement benefits

payable to him.

2. Heard Sri Gundrati Raman Goud, learned counsel for

petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and Sri M.Murali

Krishna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

Perused the record.

3. Case of the petitioner is that he joined in the service as

Forest Beat Officer in the year 1991 and retired from service on

30.06.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation while working

as Forester/Forest Section Officer. On 03.07.2017, he requested

the 4th respondent to forward his pension papers to the 3rd

respondent for release of pension and pensionary benefits and he

also made representations dated 07.05.2018 and 04.12.2018 to the

4th respondent to take action for release of his pension and

JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019

pensionary benefits. While so, the 3rd respondent had issued

pension payment order vide proceedings dated 07.06.2019 showing

recovery of an amount of Rs.7,57,702/- from the death-cum-

retirement gratuity of petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that as no

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him while in

service, no such recovery can be made from his retirement benefits,

that too, without issuing any notice to him, which is against Rules

9(1) and 9(2)(a) and (b) of T.S. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

Accordingly, he prayed to direct the respondents to pay back the

recovered amount of Rs.7,57,702/- with interest at the rate of 12%

per annum from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.06.2017 till the

date of realization.

4. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 stating that

while the petitioner was in service, he was given a target to plant

4000 plants in the avenue plantation from Renjal to Navipet X

Road and Renjal to Kandakurthy. Out of the allotted target, the

petitioner had raised only 2823 plants and there was a deviation of

1170 plants, however, the petitioner has booked the total funds of

Rs.32 lakhs allotted for planting 4000 plants, and thus, the excess

JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019

amount of Rs.7,57,702/- drawn by the petitioner, was recovered

from his retirement benefits. It is stated in the counter affidavit

that notices were issued to the petitioner on 26.09.2018,

26.02.2019 and 09.04.2019 to submit his explanation. Since the

petitioner has failed to submit any explanation in response to the

said notices, an amount of Rs.7,57,702/- was recovered from his

retirement benefits. It is stated that since the petitioner has

committed huge deviation in avenue plantation, the aforesaid

amount was recovered, and hence, he is not entitled for any relief

in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the

respondents cannot recover any amount from the petitioner after

retirement, as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against

him and no notices for recovery of amount were issued while he

was in service and such action of respondents is contrary to the

revised pension rules. Therefore, he prayed to allow the writ

petition as prayed for.

JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019

6. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1,

2, 4, 5 and 6 that the amount of Rs.7,57,702/- was recovered from

the retirement benefits of petitioner as huge deviation committed

by him in avenue plantation was found after his retirement. It is

contended that the petitioner has not responded to the notices

issued for the proposed recovery, therefore, the recovery is made.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ

petition.

7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner had

joined in the service of forest department in the year 1991 and

retired from service on 30.06.2017 on attaining the age of

superannuation. It is also not in dispute that while in service, no

notices were issued to the petitioner and no disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against him with regard to any

deviations in avenue plantation etc. Even according to the

respondents, notices for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,57,702/-

were issued to the petitioner on 26.09.2018, 26.02.2019 and

09.04.2019 i.e. much later after his retirement. Therefore, the issue

JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019

in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment in State of

Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 1, wherein, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has postulated the following situations,

where recoveries by employer would be impermissible:

"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 employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent,

(2015) 4 SCC 334

JS, J W.P.No.18888 of 2019

as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

as stated above, the respondents are not entitled to recover any

amount from the retirement benefits of petitioner. Therefore, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated

07.06.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.AG(A&E)/P14/I/

B-108/SP161/2019-05815 is hereby set aside. The respondents are

directed to release the amount of Rs.7,57,702/- to the petitioner

within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

petitioner's retirement i.e. 30.06.2017 till the date of realization.

No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:13.09.2023 ajr