Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1335 (AP)

B. Venkata Ratnam v. Union of India

2024-09-20

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 24.01.2007, whereby the respondents denied the extension of benefit of judgment of the Court in earlier case to similarly placed persons. 2. The petitioner worked as Sepoy in the Indian Army and retired in the year 1980. After retirement from the Indian Army, the petitioner joined the respondent-department as a driver with effect from 31.01.1981, he retired as Sub-Inspector on 31.10.2005. The petitioner was paid pension for the service rendered in the Army and the pension was enhanced twice on 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996. While implementing the 4th pay commission, the enhanced pension was deducted on the ground that he did not opt for issuance of entire pension in terms of letter dated 13.12.1983. 3. Challenging the said recovery, several writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the recovery of pension was arbitrary and illegal. In this regard, the petitioner made representation to the 3rd respondent seeking refund of the amount an amount of Rs.1,07,616/- recovered from the salary. The respondents issued the impugned proceedings on 24.01.2007 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.1,07,616/- with interest at 12% per annum. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was aged 62 years and now he is aged more than 80 years. The petitioner has served the nation as an Army man. The respondents ought to have exhibited a broader approach instead of issuing the impugned proceedings. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, AIR 2022 SC 2153 and Union of India and others v. G. Vasudevan Pillay and others, (1995) 2 SCC 32 . 6. At Paragraph 18 of the judgment in the matter of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that : "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. 6. At Paragraph 18 of the judgment in the matter of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that : "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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law : (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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. The case of the petitioner would fall within clauses (iii) and (v) of the situations enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. When the respondents have extended the benefit of the order of the Court in cases where the petitioner(s) approaches the Court, there was no impediment for the respondents to extend the same benefit to the similarly placed employees. The respondents ought to have exhibited more sensitivity to the case of the petitioner. 8. Considering the same, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondents have illogically and illegally recovered an amount of Rs.1,07,616/- from the petitioner's salary. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 are hereby directed to refund Rs.1,07,616/- together with interest at 9% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 are hereby directed to refund Rs.1,07,616/- together with interest at 9% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.