Shri Prasanta Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 281 Tri

Tripura High Court

Shri Prasanta Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 10 January, 2025

                HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      AGARTALA
                  W.P.(C) No.430 of 2024

Shri Prasanta Tripura,
Aged: 48 years,
S/O. Sri Sourindra Mohan Tripura,
Resident of village: West Jalefa,
P.O. Jalefa Bazar, P.S. Sabroom,
Sabroom South Tripura, PIN: 799 145
                                              ----Petitioner (s)
                            Versus

1. The State of Tripura,
   to be represented by the Secretary,
   Rural Development Department,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
   New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
   P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
   West Tripura, PIN: 799 010
2. The Secretary,
   Rural Development Department,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
   New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
   P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
   West Tripura, PIN:799 010
3. The Joint Secretary,
   Rural Development Department,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
   New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
   P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
   West Tripura, PIN:799 010
4. The Deputy Secretary,
   Rural Development Department,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
   New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
   P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
   West Tripura, PIN:799 010
5. The District Magistrate & Collector,
   South Tripura, Belonia,
   Office of the District Magistrate & Collector,
   South Tripura, Belonia, PIN:799 155
6. The Block Development Officer,
   Rupaichari R.D Block,
   Office of the Block Development Officer,
   Rupaichari R.D. Block, South Tripura,
   PIN:799 145

                                          ---- Respondents (s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s)  :          Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment and Order :          10.01.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting               :     NO


        HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                    Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman

assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. De,

Learned Addl. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-

respondents.

02. By means of filing this writ petition, the present

petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show

cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus

and/or Order/direction shall not be issued

whereby quashing and cancelling the letter,

dated, 10.04.2024, issued by the District

Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia.

(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show

cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus

and/or Order/direction shall not be issued

whereby quashing and cancelling the impugned

Memo, No.2(16)-BDO/RPC/ESTT/2018/33, dated

12-04.2024, issued by the Block Development

Officer, Rupaichari R.D. Block, South Tripura,

Belonia.

(iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show

cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus

and/or Order/direction shall not be issued

whereby directing the Respondents not to cause

any recovery from the Petitioner in connection

with his ACP-I financial benefits.

(iv) Make the rules absolute.

(v) Call for records.

(vi) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble

High Court considered fit and proper.

03. The brief facts of this writ petition is that

according to the petitioner vide Order No.1/22-

A/DM/S/ESTT/151, dated 19.02.2004, issued by the District

Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura District, Udaipur the

petitioner was appointed to the post of Computer Operator

in Community Information Centre, under the Directorate of

Information Technology (Department of Industries and

Commerce) on contract basis for a period of two years on

the terms and conditions mentioned in the order and after

appointment the petitioner joined under the respondents

w.e.f. 21.02.2004. Copy of this order is annexed with this

petition marked as Annexure-1. Thereafter, vide notification

dated 27.06.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural

Development Department, the Governor was pleased to

grant regular scale of pay of Rs.4200-8650/-52 Computer

Operators (CIC) (Group-C, Non-Gazetted), including the

petitioner after completion of six years of continuous service

without break on fixed pay basis. It was also mentioned that

the past services of those 52 nos. Computer Operators

under CIC rendered in the IT Department would be taken

into consideration for future service benefit. The notification

dated 27.06.2009 is annexed with this petition marked as

Annexure-2.

04. Thereafter vide order dated 10.04.2013 issued

by the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia the petitioner

along with others was regularized on completion of five

years of continuous service on fixed pay basis to the post of

Senior Computer Operator (CIC) in Rural Development

Department vide Order No.F.8(4)-RD/06(Shadow-I)2370,

dated 29.12.2009 was provided the regular scale of pay on

completion of five years of continuous service on

20.02.2009 under PB No.2, Rs.5310-24,000/-, Grade pay of

Rs.2100/- plus admissible allowance w.e.f. 20.02.2009.

Copy of this order dated 10.04.2013 is annexed with this

petition marked as Annexure-3.

05. Thereafter, vide Order No.2(24)-

DM/S/ESTT/2017/784 dated 28.12.2017 issued by the

District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia, the

petitioner along with others was allowed benefit of ACP-I

w.e.f 21.02.2014. It is mentioned in the said order that the

petitioner has been allowed benefit of ACP-I on completion

of his 10 years of regular and satisfactory service from the

date of his entry into Govt. service, i.e., 21.02.2004 and the

effective date from which such ACP shall be admissible was

determined as 21.02.2014. As such, the petitioner was

allowed one increment on the pay of existing pay Band and

Grade pay plus next available grade pay as benefit of

financial up-gradation under the ACP scheme. Copy of the

order dated 28.12.2017 is annexed with this petition

marked as Annexure-4. After that, vide memorandum

No.F.2(16)-BDO/RPC/ESTT/2018/1821, dated 10.01.2018

issued by the Block Development Officer, Rupaichari R.D.

Block, fixed the scale of the petitioner in tune with the

aforesaid order dated 28.12.2017 by the DM & Collector,

South Tripura, Belonia whereby ACP benefit had been

provided to the concerned employee was refixed to the next

higher grade pay of Rs.2,400/- in the same pay Band-

2(ACP-1) w.e.f. 21.02.2014. Copy of the memo dated

10.01.2018 is annexed with this petition marked as

Annexure-5.

06. Thereafter all on a sudden, the DM & Collector,

South Tripura, Belonia vide memorandum No. F.2(24)-

DM/S/ESTT/2017/1100 dated 08.05.2018 withdrawn the

benefit of ACP-1 which was allowed to the petitioner vide

order dated 28.11.2013 without providing any opportunity

to him and the said memo was annexed with the petition

marked as Annexure-6.

07. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid memo dated

08.05.2018 the present petitioner and others filed one Writ

Petition being W.P.(C) No.532 of 2018 before the High Court

and this High Court by order dated 30.05.2018 stayed the

operation of impugned memo dated 08.05.2018 whereby

the benefit of ACP-1 was arbitrarily withdrawn by the DM &

Collector, South Tripura, Belonia. Thereafter, this High Court

allowed the writ petition by the common judgment and

order dated 03.01.2019 along with other writ petitions

quashed the memorandum dated 08.05.2018 and directed

the respondents to restore and continue to give benefits of

ACP-I to the petitioner. The State-respondents being

aggrieved with the said judgment preferred one appeal

which was numbered as WA 137/2020 and the Division

Bench of this High Court quashed the writ appeal by the

judgment and order dated 02.03.2021. But the Division

Bench did not direct the respondents to cause recovery of

the said benefit already given to the incumbents.

07. Subsequently, all on a sudden the District

Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia issued

another letter No.F.2(24)-DM/S/ESTT/2021/3276 dated

10.04.2024 in compliance of the judgment and order dated

02.03.2021 passed in W.A. 137 of 2020 to the BDO,

Rupaichari R.D. Block to deduct the overdrawn amount of

pay and admissible allowance from the salary of the

petitioner from the month of April, 2024. Copy of the letter

dated 10.04.2024 is annexed with this petitioner marked as

Annexure-11 and accordingly the BDO, Rupaichari RD Block

issued an impugned memo dated 12.04.2024 expressing

that the BDO, Silachari RD Block instructed the AAO,

Rupaichari RD Block to recover the excess amount paid to

the petitioner. Copy of the letter dated 12.04.2024 is

annexed with this petition marked as Annexure-12. Being

aggrieved by the aforesaid memorandum dated 12.04.2024

the petitioner submitted one representation dated

30.04.2024 to the Block Development Officer, Rupaichari,

R.D. Block praying not to deduct alleged over drawn amount

of pay and allowance from his monthly salary. But till date

the petitioner did not receive any positive response from the

defendants. Copy of the said representation dated

30.04.2024 is annexed with this petition marked as

Annexure-13. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition.

08. The State-respondents have contested the case

by filing counter-affidavit and in the counter-affidavit the

State-authority denied the claim of the petitioner and

submitted that there are several other judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding recovery of excess

amount which is legally permissible and prayed for dismissal

of this writ petition.

09. Taking part in the hearing Learned Senior

Counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by Mr. S.

Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

stated that the petitioner Prasanta Tripura was initially

appointed as Computer Operator (Group-C, Non-Gazetted)

in the establishment of R.D. Department in the year 2002

on contractual basis and in the year 2008 his service was

regularized and after completion of ten years of service,

CAS-1(ACP-I) was granted to him. Thereafter in the year

2012 the Department provided him the benefit of CAS-1

after taking into account of his period of contractual service

and regular service both, on completion of ten years of

service. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on

08.05.2018 the D.M. & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia

issued a memorandum for withdrawal of benefit of CAS-

1(ACP-I) from the petitioner (Annexure-6) and being

aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed one writ petition

before this High Court which was numbered as

WP(C)No.532 of 2018 and a Coordinate Bench of this High

Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. After

that the Government of Tripura challenged the said

judgment before the Division Bench of this High Court which

was numbered as WA No.137 of 2020 and the Division

Bench of this High Court by judgment dated 02.03.2021

reversed the judgment of the Learned Single Judge holding

that the past service of contractual service cannot be

counted for granting of CAS-1(ACP-I). Learned Senior

Counsel Mr. Roy Barman further submitted that in the said

judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench there is no

observation or decision made by the Division Bench of this

High Court for recovery of amount already paid to the

petitioner. But despite the same the B.D.O., Rupaichari R.D.

Block, South Tripura vide letter dated 12.04.2024 directed

the concerned B.D.O. to recover the said overdrawn amount

from the salary of the petitioner and in compliance of the

said direction AAO, Accounts Section, Rupaichari R.D. Block

issued letter dated 10.04.2024 to recover the excess

amount drawn by the petitioner on monthly basis from the

month of April 2024. Learned Senior Counsel further

submitted that as per the decision of this High Court in

connection with Case No.WP(C)1342 of 2016, WP(C)1345 of

2016 and WP(C)1346 of 2016 dated 13.07.2017 of a

coordinate Bench of this High Court and also the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors.

vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in

(2015) 4 SCC 334 that no such deduction is permissible as

per law as there was no false representation or information

from the side of the petitioner who is a Group-C employee

and excess amount, if any, was paid that was only for the

fault of the department not for the fault of the petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that as per

Annexure-11 of the Writ Petition No.416 of of 2024 i.e.

communication of DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia

the period of excess amount of the petitioner as Computer

Operator was with effect from 27.09.2012 to 30.11.2018, so

in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

aforenoted case Rafiq Masih (supra), recovery of excess

amount beyond five years is not permissible.

11. I have heard rival submissions of both the parties

and perused the writ petition filed by the petitioner as well

as the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents.

There is no dispute on record that the present petitioner

was initially appointed as Computer Operator (Group-C) in

the establishment of RD Department in the year 2002 on

contractual basis and thereafter in the year 2008 his service

got regularized and after completion of ten years of service

he was given CAS-1 (ACP-I) by the department after taking

into account of his period of contractual service and regular

service. But the dispute started after issuing memorandum

by DM & Collector, South Tripura on 08.05.2018 regarding

withdrawal of ACP-1 benefit provided to the present

petitioner along with others and after that the petitioner

challenged the same before this High Court as discussed

earlier.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of

Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)

and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 in para No.18

observed 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 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 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.

(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."

Referring the same Learned Senior Counsel

submitted that in view of the principle of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex court in the said case there is no scope to

recover the excess amount already paid by the respondents

to the petitioner. It was also submitted that the aforesaid

clause-i and clause-ii of the said judgment would be applied

in this case.

13. The petitioner also relied upon another

judgment of this High Court in WP(C) No.1342 of 2016

dated 13.07.2017 in para Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, wherein this

High Court observed as under:

"5. The grievance of the petitioners is thus confined to the recovery as directed by the order dated 15.11.2016. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has fairly submitted that in terms of the said memorandum dated 21.06.2013 if the pay of the petitioners is refixed, the said arrears as calculated by the Head of Office, can be shown as the excess drawn by the petitioners, but after five years when the petitioners have consumed that sum whether the recovery should be permitted. This is the sole question that has fallen for consideration of this court. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has asserted that in view of Rafiq Masih (supra) such recovery cannot be permitted as the Apex Court has clearly laid the guideline that recovery from the employees belonging to the class III and class IV services or Group „C‟ and Group „D‟ services whose excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery was issued cannot be made.

6. In the present case, the petitioners have enjoyed the said excess amount for five years when the order of recovery was issued and hence following the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), the respondents be prohibited from recovering any amount from the petitioners. For purpose of reference, the relevant paragraph where the guidelines are laid down has been extracted hereunder:

"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 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 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.

(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."

7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has fairly admitted that on the day of issuing the impugned order dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure P-7 to the writ petition) the time frame of five years had expired, but the notice was issued to the petitioner much before that, i.e. on 22.09.2016. That apart, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that an undertaking was taken from the petitioner at the time of making payment on refixation of pay in the promotional post that had they received any amount in excess they would refund the said amount. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate did not dispute the fact that after issuance of the memorandum dated 21.06.2013 the clarification generated a new circumstances when the fact of the drawal of the excess amount was located as the petitioners‟ pay in the promotional post was again refixed. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted having referred para 11 of the reply that the Head of Office for reason best known to him had taken the action after 3 years and 4 months from the date of issuance of the said memorandum dated 21.06.2013.

8. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that if the recovery is permitted, it would be inequitous and harsh and it would out-weigh the equitable balance.

9. In view of this, the impugned order of recovery dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner which has been determined to have drawn by the petitioner in excess of the pay till their refixation in terms of the memorandum dated 21.06.2013 (Annexure R-1 to the writ petition)."

Referring the same Learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the

aforesaid citation there is no scope on the part of the State-

respondents to recover the amount from the petitioner

which is already been paid.

14. Learned Senior Counsel finally relied upon

another citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish

Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909 wherein para Nos. 23, 24, 27

and 28 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:

"23. In the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others3, this Court held 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 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)

24. Recently, this Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, held that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex- employee after the delay of 10 years.

27. The order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the State Government directing reduction in the pay scale of the appellant from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and directing recovery of the excess amount from him is grossly illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed. Therefore, the appellant shall continue to receive the pension in accordance with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.

28. In case, if any reduction in pension and consequential recovery was effected on account of the impugned orders, the appellant shall be entitled to the restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as applicable."

Referring the same Learned Senior Counsel

further drawn the attention of this court that since similar

other matters of other petitioners are also pending and by

this time some amount is already been deducted from the

salary bill of the petitioners so a direction may accordingly

be given to the State-respondents to refund/restore the said

amount to the petitioners if deducted from the salary bill.

15. So, after hearing detailed submission of Learned

Counsels of both the parties and also after going through

the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the aforenoted cases and also after perusal of the judgment

of a coordinate Bench of this High Court, this court is of the

view that if at this stage the recovery is permitted it would

be unjustified and harsh for the petitioner and also would

came under hardships of the petitioner, so in view of the

above, the impugned order of recovery dated 12.04.2024

issued by the BDO, Rupaichari R.D. Block, South Tripura is

accordingly stands set aside and quashed. The respondents

are directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner

which has been determined to have been withdrawn by the

petitioner, in excess of the pay.

16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the

extent as indicated above. However, if any amount by this

time is deducted from the salary bill of the petitioner that

shall be refunded/restored to the petitioner by the

respondents immediately. The interim order dated

05.07.2024 passed in connection with Case No. IA No.1 of

2024 arising from this petition is thus hereby made

absolute.

There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                        JUDGE





MOUMITA                    MOUMITA DATTA

DATTA                      +05'30'
Moumita