Allowed

Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023WRIA/10392/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired Sub Inspector regarding recovery proceedings for alleged overpayment. The Court held that recovery is impermissible for retired Group-C employees per the Supreme Court precedent in Rafiq Masih. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the recovered amount along with interest was directed to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 08.06.2023 deducting Rs. 5,20,376/- was held bad; the amount recovered is directed to be refunded along with 8% interest within two months.

Jugendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189045

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10392 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jugendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Goel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This matter arises out of a recovery proceeding which is claimed to be in the teeth of judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 , as the petitioner has retired from the post of Sub Inspector which is a Group-C post. This Court had given several opportunity in the past to the State to file response. As the case is covered by the Supreme Court, the Court passed following order on 12.09.2023:-

¶8

1. On the request of learned Standing Counsel the case is adjourned and directed to come up again on 28.10.2023 amongst top ten cases.

¶9

2. It is made clear that in the event response is not filed by the next date fixed, the Court will proceed to decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings available on record.

¶10

Today again learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel seeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶11

I, therefore, see no justification in granting further time and the laxity on the part of the State cannot be tolerated more especially, in those cases where the law is well settled and the orders are passed in total defiance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. It is well settled law that ignorance of law is no excuse in the case of The Swadehi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. The Government of U.P. & ors; 1975 (4) SCC 37 , it was held by the Supreme Court that " every individual is deemed to know the law of the land. " Accordingly, this Court now proceeds to decide the matter.

¶12

Admittedly, the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih ( supra ) clearly provides that no recovery can be pursued from a retired employee more especially, Group-C and

¶13

Group-D employee. Still further those who have retired as such, no recovery can be pursued. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), it has been observed thus:

¶14

"12. 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:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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."

¶20

Above view has been followed subsequently by the Apex Court in the case of ThomasDaniel vs. State of Kerala & ors; (Live Law(SC) 438.

¶21

From the above, it is, therefore, very clear that not only in respect of Group-C and Group-D employees, even in certain other cases this Court can exercise discretion to quash the order of recovery if justice so demands and the Court finds it quite equitable as well.

¶22

It has been argued in his behalf that petitioner neither mislead the authorities, nor made any misrepresentation of fact for being conferred upon such pay scale benefits which according to the respondents have wrongly been given to the petitioner. It is, thus, clear that he is neither guilty for suppresio veri and suggestio falsi .

¶23

This argument could not be confronted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶24

In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The

¶25

order dated 08.06.2023 deducting the amount of Rs.5,20,376/- is held to be bad. The amount already recovered/withheld is directed to be refunded along with 8% interest within two months of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 P Kesari

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjali Goswami Vs the Secretary, U P Public Service Commission and Another

Shilendra Kumar Vs Chief Engineer Adhisthan 6TH Anubhag Sichai Evam Jal Sansadhan Department and 3 Others

Mithlesh Kumar Soni Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Saroj Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others