IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
CWJC No. 12304 of 2023
(15.1.2024)
Devendra Tiwary ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Recovery – From gratuity amount – There has been no misrepresentation on part of petitioner leading to payment of alleged excess amount of salary to petitioner – No recovery can be effected from persons like petitioner who have already attained age of superannuation – It is negligence and laches on part of respondent authorities which has led to excess payment of salary – Since respondents have failed to demonstrate that petitioner had engaged in any sort of misrepresentation, leading to payment of alleged excess salary to him, no recovery can be made from pensionary dues of petitioner – Impugned order quashed – Writ petition allowed. (Paras 8, 10 and 11)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.09.2021, issued by the Executive Engineer, Command Area Development Division, Bettiah whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs.6,42,263/- has been directed to be recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner, on account of alleged excess salary paid to the petitioner, for the period 25.08.1983 to 31.10.2020.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was working as Correspondence Clerk on daily wages against sanctioned vacant post in the office of the Executive Engineer, Gandak Area Development Division, Bagaha, Bettiah with effect from 25.08.1983, whereafter he along with others had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, bearing CWJC No.4587 of 1989, inter alia praying therein to direct the respondents to regularize their services, which was allowed by a judgment dated 18.02.1991, however, the same was challenged by the Gandak Command Area Development Division by filing an appeal, bearing LPA No.32 of 1991 but the same was dismissed by an order dated 17.02.1993, which in turn was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 13250 of 1993, nonetheless, the same was also dismissed by an order dated 17.09.1993. The petitioner was then appointed, vide memo dated 07.10.1993 and his services were regularized on the post of Correspondence Clerk with effect from 25.8.1983.
3. Thereafter, the service book of the petitioner and others was opened and in the service book of the petitioner, the date of first joining of the petitioner on the post of correspondence clerk was mentioned as 25.8.1983, whereafter the Executive Engineer, Gandak Command Area Development Division, Bettiah had fixed the salary of the petitioner in the replacement scale and paid the annual increment from the year 1983 onwards, in pursuance to letter dated 13.08.1999, by issuing an office order dated 31.12.2001. Nonetheless, the petitioner was not paid salary for the period 25.08.1983 to 06.10.1993, hence he had filed a writ petition, bearing CWJC No.12142 of 2010, which was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 23.08.2010, with a direction to the Secretary, Water Resources Department to release the necessary funds for payment of salary to the petitioner and then the petitioner was paid arrears of salary for the period 25.08.1983 to 06.10.1993.
4. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had then superannuated on 31.10.2020 but thereafter, the respondents have shockingly issued a letter dated 16.09.2021 to the petitioner, seeking his reply, as to why recovery of a sum of Rs.6,42,263/- be not made from him on the head of excess salary paid for the period 25.08.1983 to 31.10.2020. In the meantime, a writ petition filed by the petitioner, bearing CWJC No. 23380 of 2013 was heard by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and disposed of by an order dt. 09.01.2023 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the respondent authorities for redressal of his grievances regarding recovery being made from the gratuity amount.
5. The petitioner had then filed a representation before the Superintending Engineer, Command Area Development Circle, Muzaffarpur on 07.02.2023, however, the same has been rejected, by an order dated 02.06.2023 on the ground that the petitioner has availed all the benefits admissible to a regular employee from the date of his appointment as daily wager, i.e. w.e.f. 25.10.1983 till 06.10.1993, although his services were regularized with effect from 07.10.1993, hence there is no illegality in the order dated 27.09.2021, issued by the Executive Engineer, Command Area Development Division, Bettiah, whereby it has been directed that the excess amount of salary paid to the petitioner from 25.08.1983 to 31.10.2020, totaling to a sum of Rs.6,42,263/- be deducted from the amount payable to the petitioner on the head of g
State of Punjab vs. Rafique Masih
B.Ganga Ram vs. Regional Joint Director
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 payments from retired employees is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, necessitating prior notice and opportunity for response before recovery.
Recovery of excess gratuity payments from a retired employee is legally impermissible in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. When overpayments occur due to the employer’s own calculation error....
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.