Allowed

Jeet Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2023WRIA/3507/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Appeal No. 3507 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court held that recovery of excess pension from a retired Class-III/IV employee was impermissible under the Rafiq Masih principle. The impugned orders fixing revised pay and directing recovery were quashed, with directions to refund the unauthorized deduction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; direction to refund unauthorized deducted amount within two months; pension to be paid as per pre-impugned scale.

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

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3507 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jeet Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rupesh Kumar Singh,Gulab Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was retired from the post of Head Constable on 31.12.2021 and he was getting pension after retirement. He further submitted that respondent no.3 has issued letter dated 18.5.2022 to the respondent no.2. In the said letter, it is mentioned that incorrect pay fixation has been made as petitioner was not entitled for certain annual increments at the relevant point of time, but the same has been given to him. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 21.7.2022, revised pay scale has been fixed and fresh impugned pension payment order dated 20.8.2022 has been passed. After passing these two orders, vide order dated 21.9.2022, Senior Treasuryrespondent 4 was directed to recover the excess amount and the amount has also been recovered. He next submitted that in light of judgement of Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih: 2015 (4) SCC 334 , in case of incorrect fixation of pay scale, any payment is made, no recovery can be made after retirement from Class-III and Class-IV employee. Therefore, impugned orders are bad and liable to be quashed.

¶5

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the legal and factual submissions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

I have considered the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Facts of the case are undisputed. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) . In view of the said decision, the recovery made from the petitioner was contrary to the law.

¶7

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned orders dated 21.07.2022, 20.8.2022 & 21.9.2022 are set aside with direction to refund the amount unauthorizedly deducted from the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. He shall be paid pension as he was getting prior to issuance of impugned orders.

¶8

In case there is concealment of fact or misrepresentation in this petition, respondents have liberty to move recall application.

¶9

Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Junaid

¶10

Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jeet Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeet 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

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prajapati and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Asha Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raj Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt Sudha Tiwari Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naushad Khan Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others