Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023WRIA/8902/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired police constable challenged an order directing recovery of excess salary from his retiral dues. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Masih prohibiting recovery from Class-III/IV and retired employees, the Court quashed the order and directed the recovery be reversed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order quashed; standing counsel instructed to return period the amount recovered within one month.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143324

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8902 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, the Standing Counsel has obtained instructions and has handed over a copy of the same to the Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police and retired as Sub-Inspector on 30.6.2022.

¶8

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.9.2022 passed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar directing a recovery of Rs. 2,64,076/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner because of certain excess payment having been made to him while in service and as a consequence of wrong fixation of the salary of the petitioner while he was still in service. The petitioner was initially appointed on Group 'D' post and retired from Group 'C' post.

¶9

In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer): 2015 (4) SCC 334 , the Supreme Court held in paragraph no. 12 as follows:-

¶10

"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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery

¶14

is issued.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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."

¶17

In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) , the order dated 16.9.2022 passed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar for recovery of Rs. 2,64,076/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed.

¶18

It has been stated by the Standing Counsel that the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner.

¶19

The Assistant Police Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar is directed to get the amount recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 16.9.2022 returned within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Anurag/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dara Singh Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Sushil Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Radhe Shyam Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamlesh Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarnath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others