Allowed

Yogendra Prasad @ Yougendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024/1857/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to recover excess amount deducted from the petitioner's retired pensionary benefits. The Court held recovery impermissible as the petitioner was a retired Class-IV employee, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.01.2024 quashed; Respondent directed to pay Rs. 1,32,463/- within two months.

Yogendra Prasad @ Yougendra Prasad Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21084

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1857 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Yogendra Prasad @ Yougendra Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Rao,Kanhaiya Lal Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

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 done on 08.04.2013, by mistake, resulting in excess payment to the petitioner.

¶9

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:-

¶10

" 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:

¶11

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and ClassIV 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 is issued.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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."

¶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. After the retirement of the petitioner from the post of Barber i.e. a Class IV post in the Police department, recovery of Rs. 1,32,463/- was made from the post-retiral dues of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 23.01.2024. 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 which was done on 08.04.2013. 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

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶19

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 are hereby quashed.

¶20

Respondent no. 3-Commandant 32 Battalion PAC Lucknow is directed to ensure the payment of Rs. 1,32,463/- 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 :- 11.3.2024 Ashish

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogendra Prasad @ Yougendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Prasad @ Yougendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lallan Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mahendra Kumar Tripathi Pno.No. 902590207 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Km. Ruchi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Shivraj Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Sunil Kumar and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 3 Others