Allowed

Om Lal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Apr 2024WPC/94/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the recovery of excess gratuity from a retired Class-III employee. The High Court held that without fraud or misrepresentation, no recovery can be made from an employee in the third and fourth pay bands, as per the "State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih" judgment and a subsequent Government circular. The writ petition was allowed and the recovery order set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of recovery of Rs. 4,76,742/- from the petitioner was set aside and the writ petition was disposed of.

Om Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 94 of 2023

¶2

Om Lal, son of Late Balvadra Prasad, aged about 73 years, resident of Near Kameshwar Lodge, H. No. 367/A2/A, New Makchound Toli, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand.

¶4

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum- Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶6

The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand, RCH Building, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

¶7

The Treasury Officer, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi … … Respondents

¶9

--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, J.C. to S.C. (L&C III)

¶12

04 /23.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶13

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4,76,742/- deducted from gratuity of the petitioner as excess payment with 10% percent interest thereupon, the deduction of Rs.4,76,742/- is not permissible from the Class-III employee and there is no fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner and the Department of Planning cum-Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand issued Resolution No.151/F dated 08.11.2018 [Annexure-5].

¶14

For quashing of Memo No.116 dated 19.06.2020 [Annexure-4] and Memo No. 125 dated 13.07.2020 Annexure-6] issued by Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand whereby against the Resolution No.151/F dated 08.11.2018 [Annexure-5] the order of deduction of Rs.4,76,742/- has been

¶15

¶16

passed without application on the mind only on the basis of letter of the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand.”

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a class-III employee in the office of Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi and was confirmed vide memo no. 1865 dated 13.8.1998. Upon completion of 12 years, he was granted first ACP vide memo dated 08.03.2003 in the pay scale of 4500-125-7000 and subsequently after 20 years he was given the benefit of 2^nd ACP vide memo dated 17.01.2012. The petitioner retired from the post of clerk on 31.11.2019.

¶18

4. He submits that when the matter was sent to the office of accountant general, Jharkhand. The said office issued memo recommending deduction of Rs. 4,76,742/- from the gratuity of the petitioner by stating that excess payment has been made to the petitioner.

¶19

5. The learned counsel submits that there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and in view of the circular issued by the state government dated 08.11.2018 published in 15^th January 2019 in Jharkhand Gazette, no recovery can be made in absence of fraud or misrepresentation from the employees belonging to class-III and class-IV services. He submits that the said notification was issued pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and followed by a judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 2725 of 2015 (Majhar baitha and others versus State of Jharkhand) dated 25.04.2019.

¶20

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that on account of objection raised by the office of Accountant General, an order of recovery has been passed. However, upon query by this court the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2019 and the error has been detected

¶21

¶22

only after his superannuation. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has retired from service while he was posted as class-III employee.

¶23

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there being no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner and there has been certain excess payment to the petitioner for which the petitioner is not at all responsible as pursuant to certain decision MACP benefit was given in the year 2012 and the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2019, no recovery can be made from the petitioner even if there has been a wrong decision with regards to grant of MACP. This is in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih(supra) followed by judgement of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2725 of 2015 which in turn have been followed by the State government by issuing a gazette notification dated 08.11.2018 published on 15.01.2019 with due concurrence from the finance department. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of recovery against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside.

¶24

8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶26

Binit

Om Lal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Lal v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nishi Kant Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Rajani Kant Tripathi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kalyani Devi Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited through the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Puja Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand