Mohini Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:40242

¶3

ASHOK SAHU

¶4

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2024.10.16 15:03:16 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 2110 of 2016

¶8

Mohini Gupta, W/o. Late Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 57 Years, R/o. Sonar Para Ganja Chowk, P.S. Raigarh, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh And Presently Residing At House No. K 14/B, Kanchan Ganga, Phase Il, P.S. D.D.Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - The Collector, Office Of Collector, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Accountant General, Office Of The Accountant General (A&E) Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road, P.O. Mandhar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Joint Director, Directorate Of Treasury Accounts And Pensions, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer No.1, 2 & 4 For Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate No.3.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

14.10.2024

¶21

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated 03.10.2015, by which an amount of Rs.3,82,020/- has been adjusted as an amount of excess payment paid to her husband.

¶22

2. The petitioner’s husband Santosh Kumar Gupta died in harness on 08.05.2015 and while preparing pension case, it was found that wrong pay fixation was made from 05.09.1998 to 08.05.2015 i.e. from the date of promotion to the post of Tahsildar till his death for about 17 years and therefore, Rs.3,82,020/- was recoverable from him and accordingly, consent was sought from the petitioner, which she has submitted under protest vide Annexure P-3 in order to finalize the pension case and vide Annexure P-1, she received the remaining amount of pension adjusting Rs. 3,82,020/- on 04.12.2015.

¶23

3

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the excess payment was made from 05.09.1998 to 08.05.2015 i.e. from the date of promotion to the post of Tahsildar to the date of death of petitioner’s husband and after delay of 17 years, the recovery was made. As such, it is covered by para 18(iii) of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih¹ and therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶25

4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would support the impugned order and submit that excess payment has rightly been recovered.

¶26

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶27

6. Admittedly, it is the case of the State that wrong pay fixation was done and excess payment was made from 05.09.1998 when the husband of the petitioner was promoted to the post of Tahsildar till 08.05.2015. Since the petitioner’s husband died on 08.05.2015, the recovery of excess payment from 05.09.1998 i.e. first payment of the promoted post till 08.05.2015 by impugned order dated 03.10.2015, after about 17 years, is covered by para 18(iii)

¶28

1 2015 (4) SCC 334

¶29

4

¶30

& (v) of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih

¶31

(supra), which states as under :

¶32

“(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶33

….xxx….xxx….xxx (iv)

¶34

(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.”

¶35

As such, recovery of the excess payment which has been made for a period in excess of five years would iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary as the petitioner herein has lost her husband.

¶36

7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order to the extent of adjusting Rs.3,82,020/- is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to make payment of above-stated amount to the petitioner along-with 6% interest from 03.10.2015 till the date of payment within 30 days from date of receipt of this order.

¶37

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶39

Ashok

Mohini Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohini Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambika Manikpuri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhageerathi Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sashi Sharma Alias Ganesia Bai Vs Smt. Meena Sharma

Bharat Notiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramnath Ram Rawani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Thapa Vs State Of Chhattisgarh