Allowed

Rakesh Awasthi v. State of Up and 6 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIA/8637/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Group-C employee's gratuity was partly withheld to recover excess pay paid due to the Establishment's erroneous emoluments fixation. The court held such recovery impermissible per Supreme Court precedent, allowed the writ and directed payment of the withheld balance within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing respondents to pay withheld gratuity of Rs. 4,19,526/- within fifteen days; exemption from personal appearance granted.

Rakesh Awasthi vs State of Up and 6 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120034

¶3

Court No. - 5

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8637 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Rakesh Awasthi Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Shanker Singh,Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶7

Dilip Kumar Agrawal, Finance Controller, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow has appeared in person. He has filed his personal affidavit and shown good cause for the earlier default.

¶8

The cause is accepted and so is his affidavit.

¶9

An exemption application has also been made which is allowed. Personal presence of Dilip Kumar Agrawal, Finance Controller, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow is exempted.

¶10

Personal affidavit is taken on record.

¶11

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to release the withheld part of his gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,19,526/-

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition at great length and Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhya, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶13

In the personal affidavit, which is in the nature of a counter affidavit that has been filed by the Finance Controller, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, an order dated 04.06.2019 has been annexed, which shows that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the respondents have done a re-fixation of the petitioner's emoluments and on

¶14

that basis concluded by the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand-I, Orai and signed by some other officers that a sum of Rs. 4,19,526/- has been paid to the petitioner in excess of his entitlement. It is this sum of money, which has been deducted from the petitioner's total gratuity, which has worked out to a sum of Rs. 10,20,096/-. It is by now well settled that if an employee during service is paid in excess of his entitlement on account of a wrong fixation of pay without any misinformation or participation by the employee in the fixation of his pay, it cannot be afterwards recovered from him, particularly, if he is a Group-C or Group-D employee or a retired man. Here, the petitioner is a Group-C employee and a retired one of that. There is no case urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has himself been party to the wrong fixation of his emoluments. The mistake, if any, is on the Establishment's part.

¶15

In the circumstances, the deduction made from the petitioner's gratuity in the sum of Rs. 4,19,526/- is clearly one in the teeth of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2022 SC 2153. This kind of a deduction cannot be permitted.

¶16

This Court does not wish to say that what has been unauthorizedly or negligently paid out of the exchequer should never be recovered, but, what we say is that it cannot be recovered from the petitioner, who is the immediate beneficiary of the Establishment's mistake. It is open to the Establishment, if they so desire, to fix responsibility for the incorrect fixation of the petitioner's emoluments and recover it from the persons concerned responsible for it.

¶17

In the circumstances of the case, this petition succeeds and is allowed. A mandamum is issued to each of the respondents, ordering them to ensure amongst themselves immediate payment of the

¶18

petitioner's balance gratuity of Rs. 4,19,526/- within fifteen days of date.

¶19

The Finance Controller, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, who is present in Court takes notice of the order.

¶20

Let this order be communicated to the Chief Engineer & Head of Department, Irrigation Department, Lucknow, the Chief Engineer, Tube Well (South), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Kanpur, the Superintendent Engineer (Tube Well), Jhansi Region, Jhansi, the Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Jhansi, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Block 1st, Orai, District Jalaun by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Deepak

¶22

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Awasthi v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Awasthi v. State of Up and 6 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

Bandana Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shashikant Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Vk Gupta vs State of Up and 5 Others

Jabir vs Union of India and 3 Others

James Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mamta vs State of Up and Another