IMPORTANT POINT
The recovery of wrongful/excess payment made to government servants can only be interfered with in cases where such recovery would result in hardship of a nature that far outweighs the equitable balance of the employer's right to recovery, as established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI along with Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The challenge made in this writ petition is the impugned communication dated 17.02.2023 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Dayapur, Silchar addressed to the Commandant 175 Battalion of CRPF, whereby it is directed to take necessary arrangement to recover the Risk and Hardship Allowance (“R & H allowance”, in short), which have been paid to the petitioners w.e.f. February, 2019 to January, 2023.

3. The petitioners are serving in various capacities in the CRPF. The petitioners while posted in 175 Battalion of CRPF at Kamrup district, Assam had availed the benefit of R & H allowance w.e.f. February, 2019 to January, 2023.

4. On 31.07.2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India issued an Office Memorandum wherein, it is decided to pay R & H allowance as per newly introduced rates to the personnel of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) as per the recommendation of 7th Central Pay Commission. Clause-9 of the Office Memorandum provides that CAPF have to choose one option out of 2 allowances i.e. R & H allowance (as and where applicable) plus Ration Money Allowance or Detachment Allowance plus Special Duty Allowance as and when applicable or through Location Allowances (as and where applicable).

5. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India issued another Office Memorandum on 22.02.2019, wherein it has classified the Field Areas for grant of R & H allowance to CAPF and Assam Rifles. In the notification, the location of 175 Battalion of CRPF is not incorporated. Thereafter, another communication was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India to the Director General of Central Armed Police Force for inclusion of area for grant of R & H allowance and further upgradation of existing R & H allowance other than the J & K and LWE area. In the said communication, the present location of 175 Battalion, CRPF, has been included, wherein, recommended for CI OPS in modified field areas. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authority granted R & H allowance to all the personnel, who have been deployed in 175 Battalion in CRPF till January, 2023 or the date till they served in 175 Battalion along with monthly salary w.e.f. February, 2019. The respondent authority has granted Rs.7469/- per-month as R & H allowance along with monthly salary.

6. The Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre, CRPF, Dayapur, Silchar issued a signal to the Commandant 175 Battalion of CRPF whereby, it is directed to take necessary arrangement to recover R & H allowance, which has been granted to them w.e.f. February, 2019 to January, 2023. It is reflected that the location of 175 Battalion has not been included under the entitlement of R & H allowance. Hence, this petition.

7. Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017, the personnel have to choose one option out of two allowance i.e. R & H allowance (as and where applicable) plus Ration Money allowance or Detachment Allowance plus Special Rate Allowance (as and when applicable) or through Location Allowance (as and where applicable). He submits that the respondent authority without affording any opportunity to choose the option had in their own provided the benefit of R & H allowances. He submits that some of the petitioners after completion of normal tenure of service for three years in 175 Battalion, CRPF transferred to other Battalion. Now the respondent authority without any reason in making an attempt to recover the amount which has been credited in their account under the Head of R & H allowance. He submits that no fault can be attributed to the petitioners, therefore, the impugned action of the respondent authority to initiate the process of recovery from the monthly salary or to be from the retir