High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74540 Court No. - 5 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 175 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Pal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. The instant application seeks review of the judgement rendered by this Court on 11.12.2024. This Court while passing the judgement on 11.12.2024 made the following observations:
Legal Reasoning
"It is noteworthy that at the time of fixation the petitioner had given an undertaking that any excess salary paid to him shall be recovered from him as per law. The Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported at 2016 (14) SCC 267 while considering the judgement of Rafiq Masih (supra) held as under: "10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 608 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 33] this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law : (SCC pp. 334-35) (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. (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. (emphasis supplied) 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. 12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable installments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years." In this wake the recovery was made lawfully and consistent with the judgement rendered by Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh (supra). The amount has already been recovered. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Moreover there is a long delay in approaching this Court.
Decision
The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.” The order passed by this Court was carried in appeal registered as Special Appeal Defective No. 56 of 2025 (Vijay Bahadur Pal vs. State of U.P. and 7 Others) wherein the learned Division Bench made the following observations: “This Court has put a specific query to Sri Harishanker, counsel for the appellant as to whether he had argued before the writ court regarding pendency of similar writ petition wherein interim order was granted and also regarding disposal of writ petition filed by similarly situated petitioners where the order of the writ court was complied with, he says that he had argued the matter and the court has not noticed it in its order. Since, the counsel for the appellant has stated that his argument regarding case of similarly situated persons given the benefit has not been considered at all in the judgment impugned in this petition, we cannot on this ground alone entertain the Special Appeal. The remedy for the appellant is to approach the Hon'ble Single Judge concerned by way of filing review application with affidavit indicating that such argument although was made by counsel was not noticed in the order. Special Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.” Shri Hari Shanker Singh, learned counsel who was representing the petitioner in Writ A No. 13340 of 2024 and Special Appeal Defective No. 56 of 2025 is also present in Court. The applicant has relied on three judgements rendered by learned single Judges in different cases namely Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and 7 Others (Writ A No. 13080 of 2022), Krishna Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ A No. 16943 of 2022) and Smt. Jyoti Tripathi Retired Administrative Officer vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ A No. 6091 of 2024). After some arguments Shri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant fairly contends that the case of the petitioner Vijay Bahadur Pal stands on a different footing from the petitioners in Arvind Kumar Tiwari(supra), Krishna Kumar Mishra(supra) and Smt. Jyoti Tripathi(supra). He acknowledges the fact that the aforesaid three cases stand on a different footing for the following two reasons: i. The petitioner in the instant case has given an undertaking that in case excess salary is paid to him, the same shall be recovered from him as per law at the time of his pay fixation. The undertaking was noticed in the judgement unlike the judgements in Arvind Kumar Tiwari(supra), Krishna Kumar Mishra(supra) and Smt. Jyoti Tripathi(supra). ii. He has admitted that the aforesaid undertaking and the judgement of High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported at 2016 (14) SCC 267 rendered by the Supreme Court were neither referenced to nor considered in the three judgements namely Arvind Kumar Tiwari(supra), Krishna Kumar Mishra(supra) and Smt. Jyoti Tripathi(supra) with which parity is sought. Shri Hari Shankar Singh, learned counsel fairly submits that the submissions made before the learned Division Bench was an error of judgement. After some arguments, Shri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press the instant review application. The review application is dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad