High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4769 NAFR RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.01.31 10:58:27 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5673 of 2022 1 - Rikhi Ram Yadav S/o Late F.R. Yadav Aged About 62 Years Retired Technician, C.G.S.D.C. Federation Ltd., R/o Professor Colony, Sect-3, Road No.3, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Krshi, Pashudhan Vikash, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Chhattisgarh. Nagar, Raipur, 2 - The Director Directorate Of Local Fund Audit, Block-1, 2nd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Village Urla, Post Bmy Charoda, Police Station Charoda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate : Mr. O. P. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 2 Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s and Mr. O. P. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ (s) /order(s)/direction(s) against and quash, set-aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent No.3 and further quash the impugned calculation sheet prepared by respondent no. 02 (Annexure-P/2) by declaring both are bad in the eyes of law. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent federation to immediately return the entire recovered amounts of the petitioner with the interest @18% per annum. 10.3 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please issuing the suitable direction to the respondent state to take action against the Managing Director of the respondent federation, who had habitual to harass and deprived the retired person from his legal right without any justification. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please to imposed the heavy cost of Rs. 20 lakhs upon the respondent federation on account of the harassment of the retired person without any justification. And also awarded the cast of litigation arise due to illegality committed by the respondents. 3 10.5 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue writ/writs/order / orders /direction/directions/ relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Technician as Class-III employee in the office of respondent No.3, he retired on 31.05.2020 and thereafter vide impugned order dated 28.02.2022, i.e. near about two years of his retirement an order of recovery has been issued alleging that the petitioner has been given pay scale and grade salary for which he was not entitled for and as such recovery to the tune of Rs.3,09,889/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to said recovery order the entire retiral dues has been withheld by the respondent authorities and till date neither gratuity nor leave encashment and amount of Dearness Allowance has been withheld by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation in getting the pay scale or the salary to which the respondents are alleging as such the recovery order is bad in eyes of law. Further, the petitioner was retired on 31.05.2020 and thereafter near about two years recovery notice has been issued after his retirement and therefore too it is not in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot be held liable for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.3,09,889/-. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 4 submits that the order of recovery has been rightly issued on the basis of the recommendation made by the respondent No.2/Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit as such, it can be issued even after retirement of the petitioner and there is no law restraining the respondent from recovering the amount from the petitioner if the amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that according to order passed by the Single Bench in WPS No.6218 of 2023 and other connected matter and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the recovery after retirement cannot be allowed and as such the petition is liable to be allowed. The relevant para 18 is quoted as under : “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. 5 (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly,even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the amount directed for recovery is not in accordance with law. There is no such evidence to show that the petitioner has made any representation and that too after near about two years of retirement, it cannot be recovered accordingly this petition is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that due to this order of recovery the petitioner is not being given benefit of gratuity, leave encashment and amount of Dearness Allowance, as such some direction may be issued to respondents to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner forthwith. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the respondents 6 are directed to pay the amount lying on the part of petitioner within a period of 90 days. If the amount laying on the part of petitioner is not paid within 90 days, the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the actual payment is disbursed. 7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation/s and direction/s, this
Decision
petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi