IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees can only be interfered with in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature that far outweighs the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. Recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year, recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service, and recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, among other situations, would be impermissible in law.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:

“…..call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of Respondents in recovering a sum of Rs.6,91,928/- from retirement benefits of the petitioner by obtaining letter under duress after lapse of five years and without issuing any charge sheet or conducting inquiry as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is entitled to get back an amount of Rs.6,91.928/ from the respondents with costs and interest and all other consequential benefits.”

[reproduced verbatim]

2. Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II representing the respondents and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined in the service of respondents as NMR on 01.12.1980 and his services were regularized as Helper Grade-I on 01.12.1981. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Telephone Operator on 23.05.1992 and further promoted as Work Inspector Grade-IV with effect from 17.07.2004. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2018. While so, the respondent No.3 issued proceedings, dated 12.08.2016 alleging that there was erroneous pay fixation in the cadre of Helper to Work Inspector Grade-III with effect from 01.07.1986 and that if any excess payment is noticed due to erroneous pay fixation, the same would be recovered from the petitioner without any notice. The petitioner made a representation on 25.04.2017 to the respondents that his pay was not erroneously fixed and it was done according to the rules and regulations. However, the respondents calculated the amount which was allegedly excessively paid to the petitioner as Rs.6,91,928/-. The recovery started from 09.08.2017 to 31.07.2018 @ Rs.14,494/-. However, special grade increment was sanctioned to the petitioner in the month of April, 2018 and the respondents recovered a sum of Rs.2,17,110/- from the arrears payable to the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs.3,01,103/- was recovered from the leave encashment of the petitioner on his retirement. In fact, the respondent No.3 addressed a letter to respondent No.2 on 15.11.2018 categorically stating that there is no erroneous pay fixation arrears to be recovered from the petitioner. There are variations in the amount mentioned in the notices. Further, the petitioner never sought any pay fixation and it is the respondents who have fixed the pay of the petitioner on par with the other employees and as such, if any mistake is committed by the respondents in erroneously fixing the pay, the same is not attributable to the petitioner and the petitioner is no way responsible for the same. The respondents have committed serious error in recovering the amounts after the retirement of the petitioner from the service. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recovery of amount paid in excess without fault of the recipient and the balancing of conflicting claims and hardship caused to the employee in case recovery is directed, is impermissible. Further, the petitioner belongs to Class III post and as such, no recovery can be made from him as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). Though the petitioner approached the respondents on several occasions requesting for refund of the amount and though the respondents assured him to look into the matter, no action was taken by the respondents. Further, though the petitioner g