Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1905 (JHR)

Jitendra Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-25

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.11.2012, by which an amount of Rs.1,37,314/- has been ordered to be recovered/ adjusted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, on the pretext of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that on 18.12.1972, petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post of Class-IV and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Junior Accounts Clerk on 28.12.1983, w.e.f. 01.04.1981. The petitioner was given the benefit of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 but as the same was not granted as per petitioner’s entitlement, he represented before the Chief Engineer of the respondent-Department on 26.02.2004 and accordingly, his pay-scale was revised. It is the further case of the petitioner that after attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2010 from the post of Accounts Clerk. After his retirement, the pension papers were sent to the office of Accountant General and upon verification of the same, the pension of the petitioner was fixed in reduced pay-scale and further an amount of Rs.1,37,314/- has been ordered to be recovered/ adjusted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Aggrieved by reduction of his pension and order of recovery of Rs.1,37,314/- from his retiral benefits, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that order of recovery is wrong in view of the fact that without following the procedure of law, which needs to be followed after retirement of an employee, the order of recovery has been passed and as such, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that in view of celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , no recovery can be made from the retiral benefits of Class-III and IV employees. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel further argues that in view of celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , no recovery can be made from the retiral benefits of Class-III and IV employees. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as after retirement, it was found that an excess amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner, for which he was not entitled for and thus, by giving a show-cause notice and seeking reply from the petitioner, the amount was adjusted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that impugned order is arbitrary and wrongly the same has been passed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from the post of Accounts Clerk, having rendered an unblemished service career. After his retirement, the respondents have issued the order of recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner which is not tenable the eyes of law. The said issue has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (supra). Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein below: “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: (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. (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. (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (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.” 7. Further, regarding entitlement of the petitioner, the same has also been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the State is fully authorized to rectify its own mistake and if it is found that wrong fixation of pay-scale has been done and excess amount has been paid to an employee, then rectification is always permissible and the same can be done in accordance with law. However, as recovery has been made from a Class-III employee, the same cannot be permitted in view of judgment passed in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (supra). 8. Let it be made clear that if any amount has already been recovered on the pretext of excess payment made to the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal proposition and judicial pronouncement the writ petition stands disposed of.