The court allowed a writ petition setting aside an order for salary recovery from a retired employee. Relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the bench held recovery impermissible as the excess payment spanned over five years and the employee had retired.
The impugned order dated 19.07.2006 directing recovery of Rs. 43,462 is 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6344/2006
Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Ltd.& Ors.
Date of Order : 11.05.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Mr. Tanveer Ahemd with Rajul Agrawal, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Syed Saadat Ali, counsel for respondents.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.2006 whereby recovery of Rs. 43,462/- was sought to be effected from the petitioner.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC with the respondents on 28.05.1975. In response to advertisement for direct recruitment to the post of Accountant issued on 29.04.1998, the petitioner submitted his application and is stated to have been selected on the post of Accountant in the pay scale of 5500-1759000 and was appointed as such on 14.08.1998. Yearly increments amounting to Rs.175/- each, were also granted to the petitioner. However, vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 the respondents are seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 43,462/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of recovery has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner. He further contends that the yearly increments of Rs.175/- which as per the case of respondents were not payable to the petitioner, were in fact paid to the petitioner with effect from 1998. The petitioner has also retired from service in 2010.
2
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as the petitioner was not entitled to the increment of Rs.175/-, the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the petitioner was fully justified.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.
Indisputably, the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2010. The operation of the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 effecting recovery from the petitioner has been stayed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.08.2006. The alleged over payment, for which the recovery is being made, relates to a period from 1998 till 2006 and hence, the petitioner has been paid this amount for over five years.
Reference may be made in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih [2015(4) SCC 334] wherein the Supreme Court has held that the excess amount which has been paid to the employee can be recovered but five exceptions have been carved out wherein the recovery would be impermissible. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“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:
3
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
19. We are informed by the learned Counsel representing the Appellant-State of Punjab, that all the cases in this bunch of appeals, would undisputedly fall within the first four categories delineated hereinabove. In the appeals referred to above, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (quashing the order of recovery), shall be deemed to have been upheld, for the reasons recorded above.
20. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.”
In the light of the aforementioned principle of law, the case of the petitioner would squarely fall in category ii) & iii). It would also be iniquitous to recover the amount from the petitioner, who has retired from service in the year 2010.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 is set aside.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J.
Asheesh Kr. Ydav Jr. PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of allegedly excess salary from a retired employee is permissible when payment was made for a period exceeding five years.
Whether recovery from a retired employee falls within the exceptions where recovery would be impermissible in law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab vs. Rafiq MasihExplained¶15
[2015(4) SCC 334] · Who else cites this
Om Prakash Gupta
Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Ltd.
Anupinder Singh Grewal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
