Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023WRIA/21394/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging recovery of dues from retired Class-IV police employees. Relying on the Supreme Court's principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih regarding impermissibility of recovery from Class-III and IV employees, especially retired ones, the court held the recovery action unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Application remitted to authority to examine matter afresh as per Rafiq Masih principles; dues to be released within two months if payable.

Gulab Ram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21394 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Gulab Ram And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Verma,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

In pursuance of the earlier order dated 02.01.2023, learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions to the Court for its perusal, which is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that initially, the petitioners No.1 and 2 were appointed as follower on 07.12.1981, whereas the petitioner No.3 was initially appointed on 07.10.1981 as a follower. The petitioners were appointed in the Police Department on a Class-IV employees. The petitioners have rendered their services more than 40 years as a Class-IV employees and after attaining the age of superannuation, they retired on 31.12.2021.

¶10

It is submitted that the respondents authority by means of the order dated 04.01.2022 recovered an amount of Rs.3,67,999/each from the post retiral dues in respect of the petitioners No.1 and 2 and in respect of the petitioner No.3 the respondents authority have also recovered a sum of Rs.3,53,532/- from the post retiral dues in a most illegal manner, which has caused monetary loss to the petitioners.

¶11

It is urged that feeling aggrieved against the said action of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred a representation before the respondent No.3 dated 09.12.2022 raising their grievances therein, a copy of the said representation has also been brought on record as Annexure No.6 with the petition.

¶12

It is submitted that the respondent No.3 by passing of the order dated 04.01.2022 for recovery of the amount from the post retiral dues after retirement of the petitioners and that too without providing an opportunity of hearing. It is pointed out

¶13

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.

¶14

His next submission is that the petitioners are Group-IV employees, 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 petitioners have not committed any fraud nor they misrepresented the fact before the respondents in fixation of salary, therefore, the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioners is not justifiable.

¶15

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.

¶16

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:-

¶17

"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:

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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."

¶23

Admittedly, there does not appear to be any case of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners in the

¶24

matter, nor the learned standing counsel has raised any such issue nor it has been indicated in the written instructions which are on record.

¶25

In such circumstances, the action of the respondents for recovery of amount from the post retiral dues of the petitioners cannot be sustained. Hence, 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 the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order. Whatever retiral dues are found payable shall be released to the petitioners within a further period of two months.

¶26

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.

¶27

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶28

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Rakesh/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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