THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION NO.12397 OF 2025

ORDER

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in O.A.No.292 of 2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G. Pavana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner had worked as a Mail/Express Guard under the administrative control of respondent No.2 and owing to his ill-health, he had taken voluntary retirement on medical grounds with effect from 02.07.2019 and got relieved. Thereafter, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 01.08.2019 wherein they have deducted an amount of Rs.1,96,958/- on the ground that the respondents have paid excess leave encashment amount to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, the respondents should not have recovered any amount from the petitioner after his retirement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.292 of 2021 and the Tribunal vide order, dated 21.06.2024, was pleased to dismiss the said O.A., without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 21.06.2024, passed in O.A.No.292 of 2021 by the Tribunal and further direct the respondents to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,96,958/- recovered from the petitioner towards leave encashment.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 had contended that the

respondents have erroneously calculated the leave encashment amount and paid the same to the petitioner. Upon the said error being brought to their notice, the respondents were justified in recovering the excess amount from the petitioner, as per the proceedings dated 01.08.2019. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 further relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. Raghbendra Singh², wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, if an employee is liable for penal rent, then the said amount can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. As admittedly, the respondents have erroneously paid excess leave encashment amount to the petitioner and they were justified in recovering the said amount from his gratuity. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the aforesaid O.A.. Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side, is of the considered view that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is

2 Special Leave to Appeal (C). No. 11025 of 2020 dated 15.12.2020

squarely covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra 1). As per the said judgment, no amounts can be deducted from Group-C and Group-D employees. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Group-C employee, and the amount erroneously calculated and paid by the employer to the petitioner cannot be recovered. In the instant case, the respondents have erroneously calculated the leave encashment amount and recovered the said amount after the petitioner’s retirement. Such recovery is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra 2). Theref