Allowed

Rafiq Ahmad v. Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018SPLA/411/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal preferred regarding recovery of excess salary paid due to bona fide misinterpretation. The Court held that excess payment made at the authorities' fault cannot be recovered from the employee. Consequently, lower order allowing recovery was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside and recovery orders quashed to the extent they direct recovery of excess amount.

Rafiq Ahmad Vs Additional Labour… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 411 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Rafiq Ahmad Respondent :- Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amber Khanna,Raj Kumar Khanna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur, J.

¶6

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶7

(Per Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶8

The instant special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.16058 of 2007, Rafiq Ahmad vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and others.

¶9

The facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner was initially appointed by the order dated 17.07.1975 of Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly. It transpires from the record that the appellant-petitioner was confirmed as untrained compounder (Allopathic) w.e.f. 22nd July, 1978 vide order dated 22nd September, 1979. The State Government issued a Government order on 20th September, 1980, whereby it is provided that the trained grade pay-scale was admissible to the untrained compounder, mid-wives and nurses who were appointed prior to 1st January, 1977 and whose names are given in the list appended with the Government Order/s. The respondent no.1- Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P. passed an order dated 02.03.2002 granting pay scale of trained Pharmacist to the appellant-petitioner with effect from 01.01.1986 and ordered for pay fixation of the appellant accordingly. Vide order dated 06.03.2002 the respondent no.2 passed an order for grant of pay scale and for treating the

¶10

¶11

appellant-petitioner as “Trained Pharmacist” w.e.f. 01.01.1986.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after a gap of about four years all of sudden vide the order dated 01.03.2007, the respondent no.1 cancelled its earlier order dated 02.03.2002. The order dated 01.03.2007 was passed without any enquiry, show cause notice to the appellant and without giving any opportunity to the appellant in violation of principle of natural justice. The appellant-petitioner was directed to deposit the entire arrears paid to him within 15 days by the order dated 08.03.2007 passed by respondent no.2. He further submitted that findings and reasons recorded in the impugned order dated 01.03.2007 regarding not possessing the diploma in Pharmacy is misconceived and against policy of State Government. The State Government has resolved in its Government Order dated 20.09.1990 that the untrained Pharmacists who were working since 01.01.1977 will be exempted from academic qualification.

¶13

Per-contra learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that appellant has not been able to show that how the appellant was entitled to higher pay scale. The G.O. Dated 20.09.1980 was confined only to those Compounder whose names were given in the list, therefore, the appellant cannot claim that his name was there in the said list.

¶14

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶15

After perusal of the record, pleading and hearing both the parties, it is clear that absolutely no fraud, misrepresentation etc. was committed by the appellant-petitioner and it was merely a bonafide misinterpretation on the part of the appellant-

¶16

¶17

petitioner as well as the authorities that appellant-petitioner was given higher pay scale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Varma Vs. Union of India, 1994 (2) SCC 521 and Purshottam Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (11) SCC 492 has held that any excess amount paid to the employee on the fault of the authorities cannot be recovered from the employee.

¶18

In view of the observations and law settled, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. The recovery orders dated 01.03.207 and 08.3.2007 passed by respondent no.1, Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P. Office of Labour Commissioner, Kanpur and respondent no.2 Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad respectively are quashed only to the extent to which they direct recovery of excess amount.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.9.2018 Asha

¶20

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Rafiq Ahmad v. Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafiq Ahmad v. Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Chaubey and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Nagar Panchayat and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Pushpendra Singh and Another Vs District Judge, Firozabad and Another

State of U.P. and 2 Others Vs Hari Narayan Lal and Another

Vijay Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.