Allowed

Narendra Nath Agrawal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024/1105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the writ petition to quash orders recovering Rs. 1,06,556 from a retired Class-III employee's post-retiral dues. The Court held such recovery impermissible under the Rafiq Masih judgment as it targets retired employees and exceeds permissible hardship limits, directing restitution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 07.07.2017 & 07.06.2019 quashed; Respondent directed to pay Rs. 1,06,556 within two months.

Narendra Nath Agrawal Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13469

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1105 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Narendra Nath Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

In the present writ petition, recovery of certain amount has been made from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner which according to the State is on account of wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner, by mistake, resulting in excess payment to the petitioner.

¶8

According to the petitioner, such recovery cannot be made as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334 ', paragraph-18 of which provides:-

¶9

"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:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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,

¶15

as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

¶16

Since, the controversy involved is short and legal in nature hence the petition itself is being finally disposed of as no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. The facts of the case are that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation has retired from the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, a Class-III post on 31.05.2015. After the retirement of the petitioner, the payscale of the petitioner has been redetermined by the impugned order dated 07.07.2017. In consequence thereof, the recovery of Rs. 1,06,556/- was made from the postretiral dues of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 07.06.2019, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also not the case that there was any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioner in wrong fixation/redetermination of his salary. So keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision/law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), particularly by condition no. (i) & (ii) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted in the earlier paragraph, which the learned State Counsel has been unable to distinguish.

¶18

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶19

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the impugned orders dated 07.07.2017 & 07.06.2019 are hereby quashed.

¶20

Respondent no. 3 is directed to ensure the payment of Rs. 1,06,556/- which has been withheld or recovered from the post-retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 DiVYa

¶22

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Narendra Nath Agrawal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Nath Agrawal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Women Constable Civil Police Personnel No. 204072490 Anjali Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Bal Krishna Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Pashudhan, Lko. and 5 Others

Sindhu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 5 Others

Rameshwar Prasad Patel Meth and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. P.W.D. and Others

Abdul Razzaq Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Revenue Lucknow

Rama Shankar Nisad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another