The court quashed an office order directed for recovery of overpayment of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme dues from a retired employee, holding that recovery after retirement is impermissible under precedents.
Office order dated 29.04.2019 ordering recovery of Rs.1,64,987/- is quashed and set aside.
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.
2024:HHC:4928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| CWP No. 1361 of 2023 |
|
|---|---|
| Decided on: 09.07.2024 | |
| William | … Petitioner |
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & others Coram
| … Respondents |
|---|
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
| ______________________ For the petitioner |
_____ : |
________________________ Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For the respondents | : | Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. |
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of office order dated 22.02.2021 Annexure P-2, in terms whereof recovery on account of over payment of wrong fixation of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (ACPS) to the tune of Rs.1,64,967/-, has been ordered to be effected from the petitioner.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
retirement, on 29.04.2019, the same is hit by the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334. Accordingly, he prayed that this petition be allowed and the recovery of the over payment of wrong fixation of ACPS be quashed and set aside.
3
the situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law, which read as under:-
“(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service) (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(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.
(iv) Recovery in other case, 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. ”
4
retirement of the employee.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
July 09, 2024 (Rishi)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of overpayment from a retired employee is sustainable in light of the Judgement in Rafiq Masih case?
Whether the office order dated 29.04.2019 ordering recovery of Rs.1,64,967/- should be quashed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)Applied¶15
(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334
1 provisions across 1 enactments
William
The State of Himachal Pradesh
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
