Allowed

Smt. Meena Dandekar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2023WPS/5074/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition addresses the illegal recovery of retirement dues from the widow of a deceased employee. The High Court set aside the recovery order, directed the refund of the disputed amount with interest, and ordered the medical bills to be reconsidered by the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order quashed; Rs.1,41,613/- to be returned to petitioner within two months with 9% interest; medical bill reimbursement directed to be considered.

Smt. Meena Dandekar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5074 of 2018

¶5

Smt. Meena Dandekar Widow Of Sonu Ram Dandekar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Panchayat Dhabadih, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.,

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur, Division Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Accountant General, Office Of Account General Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

District Education Officer, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Block Education Officer, Pallari, District BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri RM Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate

¶15

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶16

01.8.2023

¶17

1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

¶18

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the entire gratuity amount without deducing Rs.62,800/- and further direction be issued the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs.1,41,613/- paid to the department by the petitioner and further direction may kindly be issued to pay the interest amount @ 8% p.a. on the late payment of pension, gratuity, family welfare fund and group insurance and also direction may kindly be issued to the respondent authorities to pay the GPF Amount, leave encashment, medical bills and other benefits with interest @ 8% p.a.

¶19

¶20

10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶21

2. Briefly stated facts of the case, are that Sonu Ram Dandekar was an employee of the respondent department and while he was working as Assistant Teacher at Girls Hostel, Palari, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhattapara (CG), he died on 03.7.2017. Despite various requests made by the petitioner, who is wife of deceased Sonu Ram Dandekar, retiremental dues were not paid to the petitioner and she was pressuraized that until she deposits Rs.1,41,613/-, which was excess payment paid to her late husband, she would not get any retiremental benefit and even pension also. Hence, under such compelling circumstances, the petitioner deposited Rs.1,41,613/- by challan dated 17.4.2018 (Annexure- P/2). Despite that, Rs.62,800/- which was the amount of gratuity was deducted by the respondent authorities and medical bills were also not paid, hence, the petitioner has filed instant petition.

¶22

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount of gratuity has been paid to the petitioner without any deduction and Rs.1,41,613/- and reimbursement of medical bills are yet to be paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that aforesaid recovery has been made from the petitioner after death of her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities have not specifically mentioned regarding the period as to when alleged excess payment was made to the deceased employee. Despite that same has been recovered forcefully from the petitioner who is widow of the deceased employee. He would further submit that deceased Sonu Ram Dandekar was working on the post of Assistant Teacher at the time of his death, which is Class-III category, hence, order of recovery is bad in law as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of

¶23

¶24

Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶25

4 . Learned counsel for the State while opposing the contention putforth by counsel for the petitioner would submit that the excess amount was erroneously paid to the deceased employee, which was disclosed at the time of calculation of pension after his death, hence, recovery of the alleged amount cannot be held to be illegal and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

6. Perusal of the record show that allegedly, Rs.1,41,613/has been excessively paid to the deceased, but, it has not been specifically stated that when and under which head the alleged payment has been paid to the deceased. Perusal of the record show that deceased Sonu Ram Dandekar died on 03.7.2017 while working on the post of Assistant Teacher, which is a ClassIII post. After his death, aforesaid amount has been recovered from the petitioner, that too, after compelling her.

¶28

7 . In the case of recovery of excess payment from Class III and Class IV employee, while considering the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has laid down certain situations, under which, the recovery is totally impermissible under law. The situations as envisaged in the said judgment are as under :-

¶29

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).

¶30

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶31

(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.

¶32

¶33

(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.

¶34

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employees, 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.”

¶35

8 . This Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again, reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of CG and ors., [WP(S) No. 3663 of 2009 and other connected matters] , decided on 23 rd November, 2009, observed as under :-

¶36

“10. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that 4 the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment..........”.

¶37

9 . In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, it is clearly reflected that case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the situation mentioned in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq (supra) wherein recovery has been held to be impermissible under the law, as such, the order of recovery in the light of aforesaid situation become impermissible and to that extent, the amount of recovery of Rs.1,41,613/- from the petitioner is against the law. Hence, the same is set aside.

¶38

¶39

10 . So far as the reimbursement of medical bills are concerned, learned counsel for the State would submit that Block Education Officer, Palari has sent letters dated 15.7.2020 for reimbursement of Rs.85,681/- and Rs.66,925/- under the head of medical bills in respect of medical bills of late Sonu Ram Dandekar, but he could not apprise the court as to what happened thereafter. Document in this regard has been filed by the petitioner. In view of the above, the petitioner may file a representation before the respondent authorities for reimbursement of medical bills of the deceased employee Sonu Ram Dandekar, which is directed to be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with applicable rules.

¶40

11 . In view of the above, it is directed that amount of Rs.1,41,613/-, which has been paid by the petitioner through challan (Annexure-P/2), be returned to her by the respondent authorities, within a period of two months from today. If the aforesaid amount is not returned within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from 10.11.2023 till its realization.

¶41

12 . The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶44

Bini

Smt. Meena Dandekar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Dandekar v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Similar cases

Karam Singh Rathiya and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anupa Tirkey and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kundan Lal Patel Vs Paramjeet Singh Oberoy

Dr. Pramoda Kumar Jena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bodhram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuleshwar Thakur Vs Lilambar