Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (m. T. N. L.) – Appellant
Versus
Satya Narain Shahni – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10023 of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2023
Mr. Chandan Kumar with Ms.Kirti Atri, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. T.P. Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The impermissibility of recovery from retired employees, as established in the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Masih (2015), was a central legal principle applied in the judgment.
Headnote:
Recovery - CCS Pension Rules - Rafiq Masih (2015) - [CCS Pension Rules, 1972, Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Chandi Prasad Uniyal (2012) 8 SCC 417] - The court discussed the recovery sought from a retired Group-D employee under the CCS Pension Rules and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Masih (2015) to determine the impermissibility of recovery in such cases. The court held that the recovery was not lawful and quashed the same, directing the amount withheld to be paid to the respondent within 90 days.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, sought to recover an amount from a retired employee under the CCS Pension Rules, which was challenged by the respondent citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Masih (2015).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery sought from the retired Group-D employee was impermissible under the CCS Pension Rules, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Masih (2015). The court quashed the recovery and directed the withheld amount to be paid to the respondent within 90 days.
Issues: Recovery under CCS Pension Rules, impermissibility of recovery from retired employees, applicability of Rafiq Masih (2015) decision
Ratio Decidendi: The impermissibility of recovery from retired employees, especially those belonging to Class III and IV service, as established in the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Masih (2015), influenced the court's decision to quash the recovery sought from the respondent.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the recovery sought from the retired employee was quashed, with the direction to pay the withheld amount to the respondent within 90 days.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.38638/2023 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 10023/2023 & CM APPL.38637/2023 (stay)
1. Petitioner Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited impugns judgment dated 11.10.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent and directed that the recovery made against the respondent needs to be quashed. Consequently, order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the petitioner whereby the amount was recovered from the respondent has been quashed and petitioner has been directed to refund the amount already recovered from his salary and pensionary benefits.
2. Respondent was engaged as a causal labour in the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India in the year 1976. He later opted to be absorbed in the petitioner as regular Majdoor and sought to be governed by CCS Pension Rules, 1972.
3. Respondent superannuated on 31.12.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of computing his retiral benefits, petitioner withheld an amount of Rs.1,16,252/- on the ground that an excess amount had been paid to him towards his salary on account of some error in computation.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of recovery, respondent filed the subject original application and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 [hereinafter referred to as `Rafiq Masih (2015)'].
5. Subject petition has been allowed by the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 and consequently petitioner has approached this Court.
6. It is not in dispute that respondent was a group D employee and had been engaged as casual labour and was subsequently regularised as regular Majdoor.
7. There is also no dispute that the recovery sought to be made against the respondent was in respect of certain over payments made by the petitioner MTNL on account of some error in their computation. Respondent is admittedly not liable for the said error or instrumental in causing the error in the computation.
8. The Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (2015) (supra) has held as under:
"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."
9. The Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (2015) (supra), has summarized the situations wherein recovery by employers is impermissible in law. One such situation referred to is where recovery is sought to be made from employees belonging to Class III and IV service (or Group C and Group D service). Another situation is where recovery is sought to be made from employees who are retired employees or due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Another category mentioned is where e
