In a writ petition challenging salary deductions for wrongly fixed pay, the High Court of Tripura applied the Rafiq Masih guidelines to prohibit recovery from the Group-C employee, setting aside the impugned orders.
Impugned orders setting aside salary deductions were set aside; no amount to be deducted from the petitioner.
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.
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
WP(C) No. 20 of 2017
Sri Prasanta Saha, son of Sri Indrajit Saha, Village & P.O. Barpathari, Belonia, P.S. P.R. Bari, District : South Tripura, Tripura, PIN : 799157
…………Petitioner
– Vs –
………… Respondents
B E F O R E
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioner : Mr. P.K. Pal, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. A.S. Lodh, Addl. G.A. Date of delivery of : 23.06.2017 Judgment and Order Whether fit for reporting : NO
Page 1 of 5
WP(C)20 of 2017
Judgment and Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.
Page 2 of 5
WP(C)20 of 2017
was directed that the said overdrawn amount shall be deducted from the petitioner’s salary by monthly instalments.
State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 where the apex court had occasion to place a guideline on recovery from the categories of government employees in the following terms :
“12. 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:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. W.P.(C). No. 51 of 2016 Page 4 of 4
Page 3 of 5
WP(C)20 of 2017
(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.
(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.
(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.
[Emphasis supplied]
Mr. Pal, learned counsel has therefore submitted that the petitioner was paid a higher scale as stated above. Subsequently, the revised pay was paid to the petitioner by virtue of the amendment rules as stated. There is no dispute that no action was resorted to for recovery within a period of 5(five) years against the petitioner.
“Notwithstanding the provisions contained in these rules, the pay of a government servant whose promotion or appointment to a post is found to be or to have been erroneous, shall be regulated in accordance with any general or special orders issued by the President in this behalf”
Page 4 of 5
WP(C)20 of 2017
and from which category of the employees, such deduction for wrongful fixation or on account of any other action, can be realized.
Having observed thus, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as stated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi.B
Page 5 of 5
WP(C)20 of 2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether deduction of overdrawn salary amount from a Group-C employee was permissible under the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih.
Whether the recovery of excess pay from a Class-III/IV employee who had not faced recovery for over five years would constitute hardship.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and OthersApplied¶4
State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Saha
State of Tripura
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
