Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
B.P. Lahmore S/o Late Kartik Ram Lahmore – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh Rajya Shahkari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit, Through Its Managing Director Raipur, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 5929 of 2014
Decided on : 05-12-2023
Retirement - Recovery from Retiral Dues - Article 226 - C.G. Rajya Sahakari Vipnan Sangh Sewa Niyam 2007, Rule 25(A) - Office Memorandum dated 2nd March, 2016 - State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another - D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India and others - State of U.P. and others v. Harihar Bholenath - Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limied, Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana Rao - Dev Prakash Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others - State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. - Badri Prasad Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Manager, sought to set aside an order imposing recovery from his retiral dues due to alleged irregularities during his tenure. The petitioner had requested the conclusion of the departmental enquiry before his retirement, but the order imposing the penalty was passed after his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order imposing recovery from the petitioner's retiral dues after his retirement was not sustainable, citing legal principles and judgments that emphasized the protection of pension and gratuity rights of retired employees.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of imposing recovery from the petitioner's retiral dues after his retirement, the applicability of relevant rules and office memorandums, and the violation of the petitioner's statutory rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles and judgments to establish that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the order imposing recovery from the petitioner's retiral dues was not in line with the guidelines and legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order imposing recovery from the petitioner's retiral dues and directed the respondents to release the entire admissible dues payable to the petitioner, including arrears of pension and gratuity, and to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner after his retirement.
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:
(ii) Cost of the proceedings.
(iii) Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was working in the establishment of respondent No.1 and retired from the post of Assistant Manager (Store) in July, 2013. On account of alleged irregularities and negligence in discharge of duties while the petitioner was posted as Manager, Kisan Rice Mill, Dhamtari, he was placed under suspension and charge sheet & additional charge sheet were served on the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. Being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after appointing enquiry officer, who after conducting enquiry submitted his report on 22.04.2008. However, despite lapse of sufficient time final decision could not be taken and the petitioner was going to retire shortly, therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the respondent No.1 praying for disposal of the departmental proceedings pending against him at the earliest so that the petitioner will not be any impediment in disbursement of retiral dues of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reminders dated 13.03.2012 & 29.07.2013 in which the petitioner has stated that till date the enquiry pending against him have not been decided and he is going to retire on 31.07.2013, therefore, as per verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, payment of gratuity & group insurance be made to the petitioner.
3. On 31.07.2014 the respondent No.2 has passed the order impugned and since charge No.3 was found proved against the petitioner, it has been directed that amount of financial loss caused to the respondent No.1 on account of negligence of the petitioner i.e. Rs.9264/- along with interest, be recovered from the dues payable to the petitioner. Since charge No.4(a) has also been found proved against the petitioner, therefore, it has been ordered that since 5,46,266 numbers of jute bags were found short in the physical verification report dated 31.03.2003 in the go-down of Kisan Rice Mill, Dhamtari, therefore, 50% of total loss occasioned to the respondent No.1 be calculated as per the price prevailing at the relevant time and recovered from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner. Further, suspension period of the petitioner has been declared as dies-non and it has been directed that the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of balance amount for the said period.
4. On coming to know about the order dated 31.07.2014, the petitioner has submitted a detail representation dated 25.08.2014 before the respondent No.1 praying for recall of the order dated 31.07.2014. The petitioner has stated that although the petitioner was present on 09.07.2014 for personal hearing but personal hearing could not take place. The petitioner has submitted detailed explanation in respect of the charges for which he has been held guilty, hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of recovery from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner amounts to infringement of his statutory right. The order directing recovery from the retiral dues must be correlative to commensurate with the gravity of grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of the life of any employee as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that under the law any amount cannot be recovered from the retiral dues of
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
The recovery order and withholding of retiral dues without proper procedure and opportunity for the petitioner to be heard were illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioner was entitled to interest on t....
Recovery from the employee is impermissible if it is not due to the fault of the employee but due to the incorrect calculation by the employer.
Amendments to regulations cannot apply retrospectively to actions taken before their enactment, but an employee's undertaking may allow for recovery in certain circumstances.
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 entitle....
Recovery of embezzled amounts from an employee without departmental inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and the right to pension is protected as property under Article 300A.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
