Remanded

Baliram Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023WRIA/20688/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside orders directing recovery of excess salary from a retired Class-III employee. Relying on Rafiq Masih, the Court remitted the matter to the authority to re-examine claims given the employee's retirement status and lack of fraud, ensuring equitable treatment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery orders set aside; matter remitted to authority for fresh examination within three months.

Baliram Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20688 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Baliram Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey,Sinhasan Ram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally disposed of.

¶7

Briefly, the facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari on 18.06.1982 in the office of Block Development Officer and thereafter he was granted promotion from time to time and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.09.2019.

¶8

It is submitted that the respondent No.5 by means of the impugned order dated 08.04.2020 found that the salary fixation of the petitioner after revision, an excess payment amounting to Rs.9,65,537/- was made and, therefore, the difference of leave encashment of Rs.1,25,440/- total Rs.10,90,997/- adjusted from the gratuity amount of the petitioner in a most illegal manner, which has caused monetary loss to the petitioner.

¶9

It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2020, the consequently impugned order dated 09.09.2020/03.10.2020 was passed and the gratuity amount of the petitioner was stopped and adjusted under the excess payment of salary and differences of leave encashment amount. It is also submitted that the respondents-authorities have passed the impugned orders after retirement of the petitioner and that too without providing an opportunity of hearing. It is pointed out that due to substantial reduction of pay, the pension as well as other post retiral dues have also been reduced in a most illegal manner by the respondents.

¶10

His next submission is that the petitioner is a Group-C employee, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in [(2015) 4 SCC 334] , the recovery of the amount cannot be made. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any fraud nor he

¶11

misrepresented the fact before the respondents in fixation of salary, therefore, the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioner is not justifiable.

¶12

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

¶13

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 the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has been pleased to lay down following principles in para 18:-

¶14

"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:

¶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

Admittedly, there does not appear to be any case of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner in the matter, nor the learned standing counsel has raised any such issue nor it has been indicated in the written instructions which are on record.

¶21

In such circumstances, the orders impugned dated 08.04.2020 and 09.09.2020/03.10.2020 cannot be sustained and are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to examine the matter, afresh, and pass appropriate order, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), within a period of three months from

¶22

the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order. Whatever retiral dues are found payable shall be released to the petitioner within a further period of two months.

¶23

As regards, the claim of interest on the delay dues, it would be open to the petitioner to raise such grievance before the appropriate forum.

¶24

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶25

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Ashish Pd.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baliram Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeet Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shashi Kant Singh Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others

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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gulab Ram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jeetu Mahto Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others