Recovery from retired employees, especially after a significant period of retirement, is impermissible as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

JUDGMENT :

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is that after four years of the retirement of the petitioner on 31.10.2009, the salary of the petitioner was refixed by withdrawing certain benefits, which were extended to the petitioner during her service career and on account of withdrawal of the benefits, pay of the petitioner has been refixed and the respondents found that an excess payment of Rs.1,14,195/- has been given to the petitioner, which needs to be recovered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not challenging the re-fixation of her salary. The grievance is only with regard to the recovery of the excess amount of Rs.1,14,195/- after the retirement.

3. The facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner joined as a Staff Nurse on 26.09.1973 on adhoc basis and the services of the petitioner was subsequently regularized w.e.f. 05.05.1975. Thereafter, petitioner was sent on deputation to the Chandigarh Administration in October, 1984 and continued working as Staff Nurse at General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh till she attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009, when she ultimately retired. After the retirement, petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.8883 of 2011 as her retiral benefits were not being released by the respondents and the said writ petition was disposed of on 29.01.2013 on the ground that the retiral benefits have already been sanctioned and the amount will be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

4. Petitioner has averred that even after the passing of the order dated 29.01.2013, the respondents took sufficiently long time to release the benefits and the benefits of the petitioner were released only after re-fixation of the salary of the petitioner by withdrawing the grant of increment to the petitioner, which were granted after 8 and 16 years of regular service. Out of the total amount of gratuity i.e. Rs.4,77,147/-, the respondents have recovered an amount of Rs.1,14,195/- and only released the remaining amount of Rs.3,62,952/-. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of the recovery of the excess amount of Rs.1,14,195/-.

5. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply in which, it has been stated that the benefit of increment granted after rendering 8 and 16 years of service, was wrongly granted to the petitioner and therefore, the said benefit was rightly withdrawn and the pay of the petitioner was refixed and upon re-fixation, it was found that an excess amount of Rs.1,14,195/- has been extended to the petitioner, which needed to be recovered and has been rightly recovered. The relevant paragraphs of the reply are as under:-

“3. That the pension case of the petitioner was sent to the office A.G. Punjab, however, it was realized that wrong addition of benefit had been granted to the petitioner on completion of 8 years and 16 years of regular service. Thereafter, the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab and U.T. Chandigarh vide letter dispatch no. PEN-08/21812102 36/2013-14/80025922 dated 23.1.2013, had duly approved the qualifying service of the petitioners however, the A.G. Punjab had given remarks that “Recovery of Rs.1,14,195/- may be watched”, thus due to wrong fixation of salary the Accountant General, Punjab pointed out of the deducting recovery of Rs.1,14,195/- from the gratuity amount of the employee, payment of remaining amount of Rs.3,62,952/- was released on 12.3.2013. Further, the pension of Rs.11,385/- had been released to the petitioner, as per rules, but as the employee/petitioner had got her pension commuted, therefore, she was entitled to pension of Rs.6831/- per month.

4. That so far the recovery of Rs.1,14,195/- effected from the employee, it is submitted that petitioner/employee was granted benefits of ACP from wrong date, which was later on corrected, and due to this reason, recovery of excess amount