Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1112 (RAJ)

Ganesh Lal S/o Shri Pemji Meena v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

2016-08-02

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, an erstwhile Meter Inspector of the respondent AVVNL, has approached this Court for assailing the order (Annexure-8) dated 03.09.2013 whereby, the respondents, whilst issuing the petitioner's pension documents, deducted a sum of Rs.2,12,310/- from his terminal benefits without assigning any reason. 2. The purported explanation for the above action as putforth by the respondents in the reply is that the petitioner was given undue financial benefits somewhere in the year 1980. They, therefore, have tried to project that as, the petitioner had been given excess payment by inadvertence and without entitlement, the said amount was rightly recovered from his terminal dues and as such, the impugned action is in consonance with the applicable Pension Rules. 3. Shri S.K.M. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in (2014)8 SCC 883 and urges that endeavour to effect recovery from the terminal dues of a Retired Employee for an alleged excess payment made more than five years before the attempted recovery, cannot be sustained in view of the clear ratio of the above judgment. He therefore, urges that the impugned order and the recovery made from the petitioner's terminal dues is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be quashed and set aside. He further urges that the amount, which was recovered from the petitioner, should be directed to be reimbursed with interest in accordance with the Rajasthan Pension Rules. 4. Shri Ravi Bhansali, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Subham Modi, representing the respondent Electric Company, candidly concedes that the action of the respondents in recovering the excess amount allegedly paid to the petitioner between the year 1980 to 1988 owing to inadvertence and cannot be sustained in light of the clear ratio of Rafiq Masih's judgment (supra). However, he submits that the respondents, if so advised, be given liberty to make appropriate refixation as per the record and to effect consequent reduction in the pensionary benefits. To this submission, Shri Vyas does not object. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:- The impugned order (Annexure-8) dated 03.09.2013 whereby, the respondents effected the recovery of Rs.2,12,310/- from the petitioner's terminal benefits is hereby quashed and set aside. To this submission, Shri Vyas does not object. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:- The impugned order (Annexure-8) dated 03.09.2013 whereby, the respondents effected the recovery of Rs.2,12,310/- from the petitioner's terminal benefits is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reimburse the said amount to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment. For future payments accruing to the petitioner towards pension, the respondents, if so advised, shall be entitled to revise the same after making refixation as per the record in case rules so permit. No order as to coast.