The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning salary recovery from a retired Class III/IV employee, adhering to a coordinate Bench's order dated 18.05.2018 regarding impermissibility of recovery without specific exceptions.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3479 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from Court Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Addl. Advocate General
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board
07/08/2023
General for the State/respondents.
2
“11. In so far as those cases where recovery is being made from a retired employee on the ground that they were paid salary, allowances, increments etc. while in service, in excess of their entitlement, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih 1 is squarely applicable. Their cases will have to be decided keeping in view the direction issued in para 18 of the said judgment. Needless to say, as provided in (I) of para 18 of the said judgment, recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV
1 2015 (4) SCC 334
3
service would be wholly impermissible and no recovery shall be made from them. In respect of cases governed in other cases, due examination of individual facts would be necessary. Furthermore, in cases, undertakings have been given, recovery would be permissible though after affording opportunity of hearing in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. V. Jagdev 2 Singh , wherein exception to proposition (ii) of para 18 of Rafiq Masih’s case was carved out as below -
“11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.”
5 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 18.05.2018 passed in WPS No.4200/2012 and other connected matters.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge
pkd
2 AIR 2016 SC 3523
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 18.05.2018 passed in WPS No.4200/2012 and other connected matters.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rafiq MasihReferred¶11
Rafiq Masih 1 2015 (4) SCC 334 · Who else cites this
High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. V. Jagdev SinghReferred¶11
High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. V. Jagdev Singh 2 AIR 2016 SC 3523 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.K. Sahu
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
