Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3872 of 2019

Vijay Bahadur Singh, son of Late Sitaram Singh, resident of Qr. No.AII 31, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District – Ranchi.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

- Versus -

¶5

National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, P.O. and P.S.Hatia, District – Ranchi through its Director Office at in the Campus of National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, P.O. and P.S.- Hatia, District- Ranchi

¶6

Director, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, P.O. and P.S.- Hatia, District- Ranchi. … Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶9

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, In person. For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate …..........

¶10

06/12.09.2024

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has filed this writ application for issuance of direction upon the respondents to refund Rs.22,279/- with interest which was illegally recovered from the amount of the arrears of pension of the petitioner that too without hearing and without giving him notice.

¶13

The petitioner has retired from post of Assistant Registrar in National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology on 30.06.2011. The petitioner during his service period was given Rs.14,200/- as tribal area allowance which the petitioner was not entitled to get. The petitioner was also given Rs.5,079/- as medical advance and Rs.3,000/- as expense advance. In all, Rs.22,279/- were ordered to be recovered by order dated 14.05.2019, the respondents deducted Rs.22,279/- from the arrears of pension of the petitioner, after nine years of his retirement.

¶14

Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for travel allowance and other allowances which were given to him. It was further submitted that the aforesaid amount was deducted from his arrears of pension, in view of communication made to his employer by the Section Officer, Technical Section-VII, D/o Higher Education, MHRD, New Delhi.

¶15

-2-

¶16

On perusal of this notification, it appears that direction was given to the respondents to recover and to take necessary action regarding recovery of the amount paid as tribal area allowance.

¶17

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, specifically has held in paragraph-18 that

¶18

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.”

¶24

In the present case, the order for recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner was passed after nine years of his retirement. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (Supra) , the order of recovery made from the arrears of pension from the informant after nine years of his retirement is very harsh and arbitrary in nature. The respondents can not recover the said amount which has been paid in excess to the petitioner due to no laches on his part.

¶25

-3-

¶26

This writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to

¶27

release Rs.22,279/- in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect.

¶28

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶30

Jay/-

Vijay Bahadur Singh v. National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur Singh v. National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology

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

Prakash Routh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchami Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhusudan Soren And Anr. Vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Labour Employment And Training Deptt And Ors.

Prem Mohan Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Water Resources Department