Allowed writ petition quashing recovery of excess pension dues from a retired Class-III employee, citing judicial protection against hardship in recovery from retired or near-retiring employees.
Quashed impugned orders of recovery; directed respondent to pay recovered amount within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21640
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3550 of 2021
Petitioner :- Srikant Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav,Prem Chandra Rai,Shiv Deen Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
"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:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(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.
(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.
(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."
Order Date :- 12.3.2024 DiVYa
Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pensionary benefits can be recovered from a retired employee when the excess payment was due to wrong fixation of pay by the employer after more than five years?
Whether quashing of impugned orders declaring recovery and providing opportunity of hearing is mandatory in such cases?
Whether a retired employee is protected from recovery under established Supreme Court principles?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and othersApplied¶9
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Srikant Prasad
State Of U.P.
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
