Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1767 of 2020
Rajendra Singh Rawat ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1773 of 2020
Hoshiyar Singh Rana ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1888 of 2020
Vijendra Singh Barthwal ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. with Mr. Pradeep Hariya,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.5 in WPSS No.1773
of 2020.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Urgency Application Nos.02 of 2024, 04 of 2024 and 11683 of
2023 are allowed. Since pleadings are completed, this Court proceeds
to hear these writ petitions finally. All these writ petitions involve the
similar set of controversy and, therefore, all the writ petitions are being
decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions for quashing the
orders dated 08.08.2014, 17.11,2014, 11.06.2015 and 19.11.2019
whereby a direction was made to recover a sum of Rs.1,69,817/-,
Rs.2,15,797 and Rs.1,93,250/- from the petitioners for the reason that
some excess payment has been made to the them while giving the
benefit of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this
Court on 02.01.2024 has decided a bunch of writ petitions being
leading WPSS No.1387 of 2017 Vinod Kumar (deceased) vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others in which this Court has held that since the
petitioners are low paid employees of respondent-Mandi Parishad and
further when there was no connection of the petitioner in fixation of
the pay with effect from 01.01.1996 to 01.01.2006, which
subsequently found to be wrongly fixed, the excess payment was made
by the respondent, therefore, the same could not be recovered from the
petitioner in view of law laid down in a judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) and Others (2015) 4 SCC 334. Paragraph 18
of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"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 IV service (or Group C and Group D services).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
employees who are due to retire within one year, of the
order of recovery.
(iii) .............................................................................
(iv) .............................................................................
(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."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 does not dispute
the principle enunciated in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra).
5. Having considered the facts of the case and submission in the
light of the principle as laid down in the Rafiq Masih case, this Court
is of the opinion that the recovery, which was directed to be made
from the petitioners was illegal and the same could not have been
made from the petitioners, who are low paid employee, retired
employee and working as Drivers with the respondent-department. In
this view of the matter, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. It is directed that the
respondents-department shall refund the amount recovered from the
petitioners immediately within a period of not more than eight weeks
from today alongwith interest accrued thereon at the rate of 6% per
annum.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.04.2024
Arti
