SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Tri) 33

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
 
Samaresh Das, S/o. Late Binod Bihari Das - Petitioner 
Versus
The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.332 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv., Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Recovery of excess payments from Group-C employees is impermissible after five years, as established in Rafiq Masih's case.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Recovery of excess payment - The petitioner challenged the recovery of Rs.6,92,866/- ordered by the Block Development Officer, asserting that the recovery was unjustified as per the principles laid down in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. The court found that the petitioner had been granted ACP-I benefits after considering both contractual and regular service, and that recovery beyond five years is impermissible. (Paras 12, 15)

(B) Recovery of excess payment - The court emphasized that recovery from employees in Group-C service is not permissible if the excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years. (Paras 12, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as a Computer Operator on a contractual basis, was granted regularization and subsequently ACP-I benefits. The State later sought to recover excess payments made to the petitioner based on a directive that was challenged in court.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the recovery order, stating it would be unjust and harsh to the petitioner, and directed any deducted amounts to be refunded.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the recovery order and whether the petitioner was entitled to retain the benefits granted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that recovery of excess payments from Group-C employees is impermissible after five years, reaffirming the principles established in Rafiq Masih's case.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT PALIT, J.

Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, Learned Addl. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

2. By means of filing this writ petition, the present petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby quashing and cancelling the letter, dated, 20.02.2024, issued by the Block Development Officer, Silachari RD Block, Gomati District.

(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents not to cause any recovery from the Petitioner in connection with his ACP-1 financial benefits.

(iii) Make the rules absolute.

(iv) Call for records.

(v) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court considered fit and proper.

3. The brief facts of this writ petition is that according to the petitioner vide Order No.F.2(9)/DIT/Estt./2000/1140-44, dated 22.06.2002, issued by the Director, Information Technology Department, Government of Tripura, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Computer Operator in Community Information Centre, under the Directorate of Information Technology (Department of Industries and Commerce) on contract basis for a period of two years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order and after appointment the petitioner joined under the respondents w.e.f. 08.07.2002. Thereafter, vide notification dated 27.06.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura the petitioner was offered appointment to the temporary post of Computer Operator (CIC) (Group-C, Non- Gazetted) on regular pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/- per month plus other admissible allowances under R.D. Department w.e.f 01.12.2008 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said offer of appointment as the petitioner had completed six years of service on fixed pay basis and accordingly the petitioner joined in the post of Computer Operator under Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura vide memo dated 27.06.2009 marked as Annexure-2.

4. Thereafter vide notification dated 27.06.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura, the Governor was pleased to grant regular scale of pay of Rs.4200-8650/- to 52 Computer Operators (CIC) (Group-C, Non-Gazetted), including the petitioner after completion of six years of continuous service without break on fixed pay basis. It was also mentioned that the past services of those 52 nos. Computer Operators under CIC rendered in the IT Department would be taken into consideration for future service benefit. The notification dated 27.06.2009 is annexed with this petition marked as Annexure-2. After that, vide Order No.F.1(114-B)-DM/G/ESTT/2012/133, dated 17.02.2014 issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur the petitioner along with others were allowed benefit of ACP-I w.e.f. 08.07.2012 on completion of his 10 years of regular and satisfactory service from the date of his entry into service i.e. on 22.06.2022 and the effective date from which the ACP shall be admissible was determined on 08.07.2012. The order is annexed with the petition marked as Annexure-3.

5. It was also further stated that the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura, Rural Development Department vide letter dated 20.09.2014 informed the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura that contractual service period is not taken into account for computing the required period of service for ACP as per reference Computer Operators (CIC) has been allowed ACP taking the contract period of service into consideration and it should be cancelled immediately and excess amount paid to the incumbents shall be recovered at the earliest. Subs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top