Allowed

Indra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024/7002/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Class-III Sub-Inspector, challenged orders directing recovery of excess pay determined after retirement. The Court held no opportunity of hearing was given and no undertaking received. Applying ligna preventing recovery post-retirement, the writ was allowed to quash orders and direct refund.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; respondents directed to refund recovered amount of Rs. 4,88,063/- with interest at 8% from date of certified copy.

Indra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58882

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7002 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Indra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:-

¶8

"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Order dated 10/7/2023 passed by the opposite party no. 2 and the impugned Orders dated 21/6/2023 and 21/7/2023 passed by the opposite party no. 3 Annexure Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to this Writ Petition. as contained in

¶9

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opp. party nos. 2 & 3 to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 4,88,063/- to the petitioner, forthwith along with the interest."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner retired from the post of Sub-Inspector on 31st December 2022. After his retirement, one impugned order dated 10th July 2023 has been passed apprising the petitioner that the pay fixation order of the petitioner was not rightly passed, therefore, after completing the aforesaid exercise, his last pay drawn has been determined as Rs.58600/-. Annexure No. 2 is an order dated 21st June 2023, which has been provided along with the letter dated 10th July 2023. The aforesaid order dated 21st June 2023 provides that the salary of the petitioner has been re-determined with effect from 01.07.2006 and on the basis of the aforesaid determination with effect from 01.07.2006, the Annexure No. 3, which is a consequential impugned order dated 21st July 2023 has been passed, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of 4,88,063/-, which is an₹ excess amount being paid to the petitioner. Therefore, he should deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of two days, otherwise, the same would be recovered from his postretiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the

¶11

aforesaid inaction on the ground that before undertaking the impugned exercise of recovery, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Further at the time of providing the benefit of pay scale etc. with effect from 01.07.2006, no undertaking was received from the petitioner to the effect that if it is found that any excess amount is paid to the petitioner, the same would be recovered. Since, the petitioner retired from Class-III post, i.e., Sub Inspector, so in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washerman) reported in (2015) 4 SCC page 334 , no such recovery may be undertaken from the petitioner in the name of excess amount being paid when he was in service. Since, no undertaking was received from the petitioner at the time of making any benefit in pay scale, so the dictum of Apex Court in re: High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdeo Singh:(2016) 14 SCC 267, would not be applicable in the present case.

¶12

Per contra learned Standing Counsel tried to defend the impugned orders/inaction, but on being confronted, as to whether, any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before undertaking the recovery proceedings, learned counsel has stated that since there is no recital to that effect in the impugned order, therefore, he may not say anything thereon, but if he is given some short time, he may seek specific instruction on that point. On being further confronted, as to whether, any undertaking was received from the petitioner when the excess amount, if any, was paid to the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has stated same thing and prayed for some time to seek instruction.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, since no recital of any kind, whatsoever, has been indicated in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner has been given opportunity of hearing or any undertaking has been received from him at the time of providing the benefit of pay scale etc., then it may be presumed that no such formality has been adopted by the authority. Since, the impugned order has been passed after the retirement of the petitioner who retired from Class-III post, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of dictum of Apex Court in re: State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washerman) reported in (2015) 4 SCC page 334 .

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶15

The writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 2 and the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 and 21.07.2023

¶16

passed by the opposite party no. 3, contained as Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are hereby set aside/quashed .

¶17

The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs. to the petitioner, forthwith, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for the interest at the rate of 8% on the delayed payment.

¶18

No order as to cost.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Anurag

¶20

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

Indra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Virendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Shiv Pujan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Balak vs Chhotu @ Amit and Anr.

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Deepak Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 2 Others