IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Rohit B. Deo, Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.
Biswadip Bose - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (WP) 4411/2022
Decided On : 07-02-2023
RECOVERY - Excess Payment Recovery - State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding recovery of excess payments made to employees, particularly focusing on the principles established in the Rafiq Masih case. It highlighted that recovery from Class-III employees (Group-C) and retired employees is impermissible, especially when the excess payment was made over five years prior to the recovery order. The court emphasized the lack of notice given to the petitioner before the recovery, which influenced its decision to rule in favor of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, challenged an order directing recovery of excess payment made to him and a reduction in his last pay from Rs.52,000.00 to Rs.50,500.00, without prior notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to provide any notice before the recovery and that the excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years prior to the recovery order. The court applied the principles from the Rafiq Masih case, concluding that the recovery was impermissible.
Issues: Whether the recovery of excess payment from the petitioner was lawful, considering the lack of notice and the time elapsed since the excess payment was made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recovery from Class-III employees and retired employees is impermissible, especially when the excess payment was made over five years prior to the recovery order, as established in the Rafiq Masih case.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the court ordered the refund of the recovered amount of Rs.2,41,519.00 to the petitioner within six weeks.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 24/11/2021 directing recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner towards additional increments and reducing/refixing the basic salary of the petitioner from Rs.52,000.00 to Rs.50,500.00.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of Constable (Group - C) on 4/4/1987 with respondents and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector/ Railway Protection Force. He voluntarily superannuated from service with effect from 20/10/2021. The respondents without service of any show cause notice passed the impugned order dtd. 24/11/2021 and directed recovery of Rs.2,41,519.00 on the ground of making overpayment, from outstanding gratuity of the petitioner. It is further contention of the petitioner that the respondents have also issued the order dtd. 24/11/2021 fixing the last pay/level of the basic salary of the petitioner as Rs.50,500.00 instead of Rs.52,000.00. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made representations to respondent 2 - Senior Divisional Security Commissioner on 1/2/2022 and 14/6/2022, but respondent 2 has not redressed the grievance. Hence, being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.D. Dhande, submitted that the petitioner has completed more than 34 years of service and obtained voluntary superannuation on 20/10/2021. During the petitioner's entire service, the petitioner was not served with any notice for recovery of the amount by the respondents, but after superannuation, without issuing show cause notice, the respondents directed recovery from the petitioner of Rs.2,41,519.00 and wrongly fixed last the pay/level on Rs.50,500.00 instead of Rs.52,000.00. After several representations and after enquiries, the petitioner has been orally informed that recovery has been made on the ground of excess increments paid to him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [2015(1) ALL MR 957 (S.C.)], and submitted that since the petitioner belongs to Group-C post no recovery is permissible after retirement and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
5. The respondents filed reply dtd. 20/1/2023 contending that at the time of final pay fixation and upon inspection of service book of the petitioner, it was found that there was objection to pay fixation in the year 1996 and 1999 and financial benefits for promotion under Assured Career Progression Scheme granted were irregular/excessive. Accordingly, the respondents refixed the last pay scale/level of the salary of the petitioner on Rs.50,500.00 and deducted an of Rs.2,41,519.00 as per direction of the Audit Department. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that the petitioner has served as Group-C employee for more than 34 years from 4/4/1987 and superannuated on 20/10/2021. In the case in hand, the respondents recovered an amount of Rs.2,41,519.00 from the gratuity of the petitioner on the ground of additional increments paid to the petitioner for the years 1996 and 1999 and also fixed the last pay/level on Rs.50,500.00. Respondents 1 and 2 contended that at the time of retirement of the petitioner salary of Rs.52,000.00 was paid, but upon inspection of service book of the petitioner while final pay fixation, it was revealed that in the year 1999, the petitioner was given pay scale of Rs.3200.00 4900 under Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (ACP), while granting promotional benefits and ACP in the year 2007
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees or those belonging to Class-III service is impermissible without prior notice, especially when the excess payment was made over five years prior to ....
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
Recovery of excess salary cannot be enforced without prior hearing, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is established.
Recovery of excess payment from retired employees is impermissible after five years unless a valid undertaking exists; arbitrary recovery orders are quashed.
Recovery of excess payments made to employees is impermissible where no fault exists on the employee's part and payments have spanned over five years, protecting livelihood rights.
Recovery of excess salary from retired employees is impermissible, particularly when payments were made with knowledge of their inappropriateness and detecting excess payments after a prolonged perio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.