Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2271
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Dhir Singh - Appellant
Versus
The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Others - Respondent
CWP-19054-2016
Decided On : 15-10-2019
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent
No recovery can be ordered from a retired employee, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case.
Headnote:
Recovery - Salary Refixation - State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.. (2015) 1 S.C.T., 195 - The court discussed the recovery of an excess payment from a retired employee's gratuity after refixing his salary, citing the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case, and concluded that no recovery can be ordered from a retired employee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's pay was refixed after retirement, and an amount was recovered from his gratuity. The petitioner argued that the recovery was contrary to the settled principle of law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of the excess payment from the petitioner's gratuity after his retirement was not sustainable, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the recovery of an excess payment from the petitioner's gratuity after refixing his salary post-retirement was permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the guidelines from Rafiq Masih's case, which stated that no recovery can be ordered from a retired employee, and concluded that the recovery from the petitioner's gratuity after his retirement cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the recovery of the amount from the petitioner's gratuity and directed the respondents to release the deducted amount within two months.
JUDGMENT
Harsimran Singh Sethi. J. (Oral) - In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that after the retirement of the petitioner, his pay has been refixed and an amount of Rs. 2,06,288/- has been recovered from his gratuity, which action of the respondents is contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.. (2015) 1 S.C.T., 195.
2. The facts, which have been mentioned in the writ petition are, that petitioner was initially appointed as a T-Mate with the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 31.05.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted as an Assistant Lineman on 31.03.1994. In the year 1995, electricity wing of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar was merged with the Punjab State Electricity Board and the Punjab State Electricity Board was thereafter bifurcated into two parts i.e. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and the Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited. Petitioner was allocated the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.
3. In the year 2009, petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Lineman and while working on the said post, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. After the petitioner retired, while computing the case of the petitioner for the grant of retiral benefits, an objection was raised by the Accounts Department of the respondent-Corporation with regard to the grant of benefits of first time bound and second time bound promotional scale. Keeping in view the objections of the Accounts Department, it is the averment of the petitioner that, unilaterally, his pay was refixed and after refixing his pay, a sum of Rs. 2,06,288/- have been deducted from his gratuity by the respondent-Corporation. The prayer of the petitioner is that no recovery can be done from a retired employee after refixing his salary keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra).
4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply.
5. In the reply, respondents have stated that pay of the petitioner was fixed contrary to the instructions dated 07.01.2013 and therefore, after withdrawing the benefit of first time bound and second time bound scale, the pay of the petitioner was refixed and upon refixation, it was found that the petitioner has been paid an excess amount of Rs. 2,06,288/-.
6. Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed and the said mistake was later rectified by the department and therefore, once the mistake was rectified, the respondents are well within their right to effect the recovery as the same was public money and no grievance can be raised by the petitioner in this regard. Counsel for the respondents further states that the petitioner was also called for personal hearing before ordering the abovesaid recovery.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
8. The only question, which is raised for consideration before this Court in the present writ petition, is as to whether, the recovery of an excess payment of Rs. 2,06,288/- could have been done from the gratuity of the petitioner or not after refixing his salary after his retirement?
9. The above stated facts are not in dispute that the pay of the petitioner has unilaterally refixed by the respondents by withdrawing the benefit of service benefits, which were granted to the petitioner during the course of his service career after his retirement. The withdrawal of the benefit is not under challenge by the petitioner and the only challenge is to the recovery, which is being effected from his pensionary benefits of the excess payment amounting to Rs. 2,06,288/-.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra) has laid down the guidelines as to under what circumstances, the recovery cannot be done from the employees. The relevant part
