Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 687 (JHR)

Janardan Prasad Saha v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-03

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 8.3.07 (Annexures-3 & 3/1) to the extent the respondents have sought to recover the amount paid to the petitioners in excess towards the difference of revised scale of pay: It has been stated that the petitioners were the employees of Gumla and Simdega Central Co-operative Bank. The petitioner No. 1 retired on 31.5.05 and the petitioner No. 2 on 31.3.05. During the service period, the pay scale of the petitioners was revised by Memo No. 114 dated 26.3.04 and the benefits of pay revision was given to the petitioners. Subsequently, the said order of revision of pay was cancelled by order dated 7.12.04. Thereafter, the respondent's issued another letter dated 16.8.05 whereby the order of recovery of the excess amount from the petitioner’s retiral benefits has been passed on the ground that the excess amount was paid to the petitioners towards the revised scale of pay and the order of revision of pay was subsequently cancelled. Subsequentty, the petitioners were informed that the amount which was paid to them as difference of pay after the pay revision, has been adjusted out of their retiral dues. A sum of Rs.2,00,981/- is said to have been adjusted from the retiral dues of the petitioner No. 1 and a sum of Rs.1,90,861/- is said to have been adjusted from the retiral dues of the petitioner No. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order for revision of the, pay was issued by the respondents Bank and there was no representation/misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioners for obtaining the said revised scale. The said amount, which was paid to the petitioners by the Bank towards the arrears of salary on the basis of the revision of the pay scale, cannot be recovered/adjusted from the retiral benefits of the petitioners. The petitioners are not liable to refund the said amount, even if subsequently the order of revision of pay was cancelled. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Sahib Ram vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. [1994(5) SLR 753] and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 3793/ 2004] reported in 2007(4) JLJR 459 . 3. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. [1994(5) SLR 753] and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 3793/ 2004] reported in 2007(4) JLJR 459 . 3. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it has been stated, inter alia, that the order on the basis of which the revised pay scale was given to the petitioner was subsequently cancelled and as such now there is no order for payment of the revised scale. However, the petitioners were paid the excess amount towards the revision of pay and they are liable to refund the amount which has been paid to them in excess. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record as also the judicial pronouncements. In Sahib Ram case (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically held that any amount paid to an employee without his misrepresentation cannot be recovered. In Laxman Prasad Gupta case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court has held that after retirement, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and the recovery out of the retiral dues cannot be made, except by following the due procedure established by law. No contrary rule or decision has been produced on behalf of the respondents. 5. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the respondents cannot recover the amount paid to the petitioners as a part of the salary after the revision of the pay scale. The order of recovery to the extent of difference of salary is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and the same is, l1ereby, quashed. This writ petition is allowed. 6. The respondents are directed to release the amount so adjusted as excess payment towards salary after revision of the pay scale within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the said amount is not refunded to the petitioners within the said period, the same shall carry interest @ 10% per annum till final payment.