Uttam Singh Baghel v. Divisional Forest Officer

Shri Ritesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery is permissible after retirement as the petitioner belongs to category of Class-III employee. He further submits that 3 after the retirement, such recovery is impermissible in law and places reliance in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)1. In view of such submission he prays for the following reliefs:- "10.1 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the record as regard the petitioner's case; 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ for quashing the recovery order (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent and direct the respondent to pay the recovered amount after retirement; 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue direction to the respondents to fix pension immediately and pay with arrears at the rate of 12% to the petitioner; 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any order or issue any suitable writ or direction as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case including cost of the petition." (5) Shri Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State would oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as the petitioner/employee has filed an undertaking for refund of excess payment so made, therefore, recovery order passed by the respondent/Authority is just and proper. In support of his submission, he places reliance in the matters of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors vs. Jagdev Singh2 and Chandi Prasad 1 2 (2015) 4 SCC 334 (2016) 14 SCC 267 4 Uniyal and Ors Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors3. In view of such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition. (6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (7) Recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors Vs. the District Judge, Cuttack and Ors4, an issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that whether recovery of amount extended to the appellants (therein) while they were in service is justified after their retirement, that too without affording any opportunity of hearing, wherein, their Lordships in the Supreme Court observed that restraining back recovery of excess payment is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. It is also observed that a government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family and if he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it, as any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him. The material portion of the above judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "8) The law in this regard has been settled by this Court in catena of judgments rendered time and again; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana5, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India6, 3 4 5 6 (2012) 8 SCC 417 2025 INSC 449 : (SLP (C) No.5918/2024) decided on 04.04.2025 (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18 (1994) 2 SCC 521 5 Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar7 and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director8 and in a recent decision in the matter of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors9. 9) This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. It is held that such relief against the recovery is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. 10) In Thomas Daniel (supra), this Court has held thus in paras 10, 11, 12 and 13: “10. In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana1 this Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus: “5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation, the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong 7 8 9