Allowed

Prasad Tirkey v. Human Resources Department

Jharkhand HC19 Feb 2021WPC/3879/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee challenged a notification directed to recover an amount from his pension benefits. The court held that recovery is impermissible without proof of fraud or misrepresentation. It quashed the order and directed refund with interest.

What did the court decide?

Notification quashed; University directed to refund Rs. 63,332/- within three months with simple interest at 6% per annum.

Prasad Tirkey Vs Human Resources Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 3879 of 2015

¶4

Prasad Tirkey ..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, DistrictRanchi.

¶8

Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

¶9

Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi.

¶10

Principal Kartik Oraon College, Gumla.

¶11

..... Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate For the University : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate For the State :Mr. Gaurang Jadodia, Advocate ---------

¶15

09/Dated: 19^th February, 2021

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶17

2. The petitioner has confined his prayer only for quashing the notification passed in Letter No. A/C 28789/15 dated 02.05.2015 (Annexure-4), whereby an order has been passed for recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs. 63,332/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now it is well settled principle that no recovery can be made from the retiral benefit of any employee unless and until it is proved that there is some misrepresentation or fraud committed by the retired employee; as such the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 should be quashed and the respondents be directed to refund the said amount.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University

¶20

¶21

submits that in the matter of Sewak Ram it has been decided that the amount paid in excess is not to be adjusted from the retiral benefits payable to that employeeSevak Ram; rather it was found that an amount of Rs. 1,05,593/- was found payable to this petitioner and as such the amount of Rs. 63,332/- has been adjusted and the balance amount of Rs. 42,261/- has been paid to the petitioner.

¶22

5. Learned counsel further submits that this has been done in pursuance to a letter dated 02.07.2016 of the State Government.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the respondent University and/or State could not justify or demonstrate before this court that the petitioner has committed any fraud or misrepresentation and as such without initiating any proceeding, the amount could not be recovered from this petitioner.

¶24

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the respondent-University after receipt of letter No. A/C 707/16 dated 02.07.2016 decided not to give full amount which was lying to be paid to this petitioner; rather out of full amount of Rs. 1,05,593/-, Rs. 63,332/- was adjusted and the balance was paid to him. This is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶25

¶26

Now it is a settled principle of law that no recovery can be made from any person after his retirement unless fraud or misrepresentation has been proved as against that employee.

¶27

8. Having regards to the fact of the case, the notification passed in Letter No. A/C 287-89/15 dated 02.05.2015 (Annexure-4), is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent-University is directed to take all necessary steps and refund/pay the deducted amount of Rs. 63,332/to this petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of the actual payment.

¶28

9. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ

¶29

application stands allowed.

¶30

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶31

Amardeep/

Prasad Tirkey v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Tirkey v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Siyaram Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Poulus Horo And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vakil Prasad Singh Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Madan Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhan Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand