Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2519 UK
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
09D WPSS No.369 of 2025
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Rajat Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State.
The petitioner challenges the recovery that has been made from his retiral dues.
State was required to get instructions. Learned State counsel would submit that the Chief Education Offices states that he may not pass an order for refund. It is only the State Government which can pass such an order.
Annexure 6 is the pension payment order. It records the recovery amount Rs.3,57,898/-.
The law is well settled. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher. He has retired.
In the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih(2015) 4 SCC 334, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles, as to under what circumstances, the recovery from the Government servants may not be issued. Is it not its violation? Has the petitioner played any fraud or misrepresentation?
Let the State file a short counter affidavit specifying categorically in it, whether such recovery is permissible, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra)? If it is not so, why it may not be treated as contempt matter defying the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court? This Court writes so because in most of the cases, the Government machinery is issuing recovery in the matters that are covered by the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
Let such affidavit be filed within two weeks from today.
List on 25.04.2025 as the first case after fresh.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.03.2025 Jitendra
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!