Recovery of excess payments from retirees or without due process breaches principles of natural justice, violating Articles 14, 16, and 300-A of the Constitution.

Order :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.2,47,000/- which was recovered from her husband’s leave encashment vide order dated03.02.2018.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s husband joined the respondent Bank as a Branch Manager on 01.03.1985 and retired from service at the Chaba Branch on 31.01.2018 (PF/ID No. 3183), who died on 11.01.2023. His Death Certificate dated 01.02.2023 issued by Govt. Of Rajasthan, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Jodhpur (Annex.A/1) is on record.

2.1. Under the Bank’s Leave Travel Concession (LTC) Scheme, her husband was sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,47,000/- for his approved travel plan, which was credited to his account through a sanction letter dated 07.11.2016. He undertook the journey between 07.11.2016 to 14.11.2016, and thereafter submitted his travel expense statement of Rs.2,69,111/- on 12.12.2016 for settlement.

2.2. Prior to his retirement, petitioner’s husband submitted a representation dated 11.10.2017 seeking early finalization of his LTC claim. However, upon superannuation, although all other dues were released, the Bank recovered Rs.2,47,000/- from his leave encashment without issuance of any notice or holding any inquiry. The said recovery, made vide order dated 03.02.2018, was thus alleged to be violative of the principles of natural justice.

2.3. The petitioner’s husband thereafter submitted representations dated 26.03.2018 and a legal notice dated 09.05.2018 demanding refund of the recovered amount, but to no avail. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the recovery of Rs.2,47,000/- from the petitioner’s husband leave encashment, as ordered on 03.02.2018 (Annexure–5), is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. It is argued that the impugned action, taken unilaterally without affording an opportunity of hearing, amounts to a gross violation of Articles 14, 16, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. There was no lapse, irregularity, or misconduct attributable to the petitioner in availing the LTC facility, which had been duly verified and sanctioned by the competent authority. The respondents, despite having adequate opportunity, failed to raise any objection or initiate any proceedings during the service tenure of petitioner’s husband.

3.1. The learned counsel emphasizes that audi alteram partem (a fundamental principle of natural justice) was blatantly violated, as the recovery was effected without any prior notice or inquiry. It is urged that an order entailing civil or pecuniary consequences cannot stand when passed in contravention of due process.

3.2. Further, the deduction of the LTC amount constitutes unauthorized deprivation of the petitioner’s husband lawful property, offending Article 300-A of the Constitution. The petitioner was unjustly denied his rightful dues despite fulfilling all conditions under the scheme.

3.3. Counsel also highlights the administrative apathy of the respondents in ignoring repeated representations dated 11.10.2017, 26.03.2018, and the legal notice dated 09.05.2018, thereby demonstrating arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s husband, having been deprived of his rightful dues since retirement, is entitled to interest on the recovered amount from the date of deduction till actual payment, to compensate for financial hardship. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v.