Disposed

Tej Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2018WRIA/12023/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a writ petition challenging a directive to recover overpaid salary from a superannuated class III employee. Relying on Supreme Court principles regarding hardship in recovery, the Court directed authorities to examine the matter afresh and barred any recovery pending a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the concerned authority to examine the matter afresh within two months; no recovery to be made from the petitioner until the fresh order is passed.

Tej Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12023 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Tej Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Purushottam Mani Tripathi,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

The Director, Internal Accounts & Audit, U.P., Lucknow has passed an order on 28.12.2015 determining the entitlement of a large number of persons to receive ACP as per the Government Order. Salary of various persons, including the petitioner, has been fixed. The order further provides that the salary of the petitioner, fixed previously, is modified and consequential order has been passed for recovery to be made from the petitioner's gratuity. Admittedly, petitioner's salary was fixed nearly 15 years ago vide orders dated 23.09.1987, 16.07.2001 and 30.09.2003. The orders, therefore, have been challenged on the ground that benefits, already granted to the petitioner since long, cannot be withdrawn, particularly, when petitioner has superannuated. Reliance is placed upon an order passed by this Court in Service Single No. 16007 of 2017 ( Rakesh Kumar Tripathi and 18 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others , decided on 20.07.2017).

¶6

While entertaining the writ petition, time was allowed to the learned standing counsel to file a counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed. Considering the nature of order, proposed to be passed, no further opportunity is liable to be allowed to the learned standing counsel to file a counter affidavit.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud practised by the petitioner in the matter. Submission is that petitioner is class III employee and the amount already paid to him, in such circumstances, ought not to be recovered in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, without an opportunity of hearing.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that petitioner's grievance shall be examined by the authority concerned, afresh, in accordance with law.

¶9

Considering the hardship which may be caused to a class III and class IV employee if recovery is affected from such employee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) has been pleased to lay down following principles in para 18:-

¶10

"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:

¶11

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

¶12

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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."

¶16

Admittedly, there does not appear to be any case of misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioner in the matter. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition requiring the authority concerned to examine the matter, afresh, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The orders under challenge in this petition shall be subject to the orders to be passed, afresh, by the authority concerned. No recovery shall be made from petitioners till a fresh order is passed, as indicated above.

¶17

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.7.2018 Amit Mishra

Tej Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Lakhmi Chand Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sudheer Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pooja Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surya Praksh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajendra Mohan Bhatnagar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others