Recovery of excess salary payments from retired employees is restricted by time limits and conditions set by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for clarity in undertaking declarations.

JUDGMENT :

D. Krishnakumar, C.J.

Heard Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appears for the appellant; Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Rustam, learned counsel and Mr. W. Niranjit, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appear for the respondents.

2. The intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the writ court thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein, requiring proceeding initiated upon the appellant.

3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner submits that pursuant to the DE, the petitioner was awarded major penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect for a period of 3 (three) years from the date of his suspension from service in the year 2006.

4. The Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 which came into effect from 01.01.2006 for payment of revised pay of scale from 01.04.2010 had been notified on 01.01.2006. As per the aforesaid Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 , the respondent police department herein were allowed to fix the revised pay from 01.01.2006 by order dated 26.08.2010 pursuant to the decision taken by the respondent No. 1 an undertaking declaration was opted by the respondent police department for payment of revised pay scale to the petitioner by stating that if any excess payment is made to the respondent the same shall be entitled for recovery from the respondent herein.

5. Therefore, according to the appellant, required proceeding has been initiated by the appellant to recover the aforesaid excess amount to the respondent herein till required proceeding and the said required proceeding was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 112 of 2019.

6. The appellant has strongly relied upon the Undertaking Declaration Form submitted by the respondent No.1 herein that at any excess amount is paid, the same to be recovered from the respondent No. 1 herein and since such undertaking is given, now the respondent cannot take a different counter statement and challenge the aforesaid recovery proceeding and therefore, the aforesaid aspect was not properly considered by the writ court in proper perspective. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has strongly objected the contention raised by the appellant that the aforesaid undertaking declaration form relied upon by the appellant which has been obtained at the time of retirement of the respondent No. 1 herein. He also relied upon the reply affidavit filed by the respondent at page 142 in para 5 of the appeal memo wherein it is clearly contended that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein was forced to put his signature at time of his retirement and therefore, the required proceeding initiated by the appellant is after the retirement of the respondent No.1 herein and further states that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab –vs- Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 which according to them is, if any proceeding is initiated after a period of 5 years, the same is liable to be set aside and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the case of the respondent herein and rejecting the contention of the appellant.

8. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.

9. The point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the undertaking declaration form furnished by the appellant department which has been submitted by the respondent herein at the time of implementation of revised pay of scale.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the aforesaid undertaking was submitted by the respondent/employees at the time of the revised scale of pay and a copy of the declaration form is placed before this Court and we also perused the form submitted before this Court where it has been stated that no date has been mentioned in the said declaration form and also re