Uttarakhand High Court

Khayali Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 May, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                       Writ Petition No. 551 of 2022 (S/S)

 Khayali Ram                                                   ........Petitioner

                                       Versus

 State of Uttarakhand and Others                           ........Respondents

 Present:-
        Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Mr. R.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State.

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the

following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 30.06.2018 issued by Chief Treasury Officer, Udham Singh Nagar whereby recovery of Rs. 36,588/- has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of being heard.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the amount wrongly recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner and also upgraded the pension of the petitioner.

(iii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as

Assistant Teacher and retired on 31.03.2018, but by the order dated

30.06.2018, a recovery of Rs. 36,588/- was issued against him. It is

challenged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner retired from services on 31.03.2018; he was paid pension

regularly, but suddenly, Rs. 36,588/- were recovered from his pension,

which is against law; he did not make any misrepresentation or did

not commit any fraud on the respondent-authorities while receiving

the money on service. He would refer to the principles of law, as laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and

Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334. In the case of Rafiq Masih

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles on

the subject as follows:-

"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."

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the recovery

was made as per Government Orders, but to a specific query of the

Court as to whether in view of the principles of law, as laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), such

recovery be made, he would submit that as per the directions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the recovery

cannot be made.

6. The petition's case is squarely covered by the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih

(supra). The excess recovery cannot be made from him. Therefore, the

writ petition deserves to be allowed.

7. The writ petition is allowed. The recovery order dated