The Court allowed a writ petition, directing the respondents to release terminal benefits wrongly withheld due to excess pay fixation made over a decade prior, invoking Apex Court principles.
The impugned recovery orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to release the withheld amount forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200877
Court No. - 44
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16943 of 2022 Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent : - C.S.C.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1.12.2008 was to be proposed. Prior to rearrangement of clerical cadre i.e. 18.3.2011 grade pay of Rs. 4200/- was approved, in which from December 2008 to 18.3.2011, the petitioner was entitled for pay grade of Rs. 4200/- and pay grade of Rs. 4600/from 18.3.2011, till his retirement. Due to mistake from 1st December, 2008 in place of grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, the grade pay of Rs. 4600/- was given to the petitioner by the concerned division. As per the orders of the Finance Controller, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P., Lucknow, correct fixation was made and the department has made efforts for recovery of the excess amount during service period of the petitioner.
"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:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(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.
(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."
directives given by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to release the withheld amount, which was recovered from the petitioner forthwith.
(Donadi Ramesh, J.)
Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Noman
Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of excess pay from retired employee's pension after more than five years violates Supreme Court direction.
Whether recovery from retired employee violates principles of natural justice and Apex Court directives.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq MasihApplied¶12
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 AIR (SC) 696 · Who else cites this
Writ A Nos. 13080 of 2022 and 20106 of 2018Referred¶21
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna Kumar Mishra
State Of U.P.
Donadi Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
