✦ High Court of India · 01 Sep 2025

Subhash Chandra Bhatt And Ors. vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

Case Details High Court of India · 01 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
01 Sep 2025
Bench
RAJAN ROYMANJIVE SHUKLA
Length
1,911 words

Cited in this judgment

: Arvind Kumar, Abhinav Kumar : C.S.C., Aishwarya Pandey, Ayush Chaudhary, Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Vibhanshu Srivastava SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 160 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Through Its Managing Director And Anr Subhash Chandra Bhatt And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhanshu Srivastava Illegible SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 228 of 2018 2 SPLA No. 224 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Through Managing Director Lko.And Anr. Sunil Jain And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anilesh Tewari Illegible With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 229 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Throu Managing Director Lko.And Anr. Bhupendra Singh Chopra And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anilesh Tewari Illegible With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 374 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Throu Its Managing Director And Anr. Sant Kumar Mishra And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhanshu Srivastava Illegible With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 375 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Throu Its Managing Director And Anr. 3 Versus SPLA No. 224 of 2018 .....Appellant(s) Devendra Nath Tiwari And Ors. Counsel for Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Illegible Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhanshu Srivastava Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. Same order dated 28.11.2013 as was impugned before the Writ Court in these cases was under challenge in Writ Petition no. 7680 (S/S) of 2013. The appellant herein i.e. U.P. Forest Corporation and its officers were opposite parties in the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to argue the matter on merits in Special Appeal No. 301 of 2019 on the ground that the writ petitions had already become infructuous as recovery had already been effected in pursuance to the order dated 28.11.2013 before filing the the writ petition. He also invited our attention to observations contained in the order dated 23.7.2019 passed by this Court in this regard.

3. Sri Vibhansu Srivastava, appearing for the respondent in this Bunch of matters submitted that the benefit of the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed in Writ Petition no. 7680 (S/S) of 2013 was given to other persons in other writ petitions which were allowed in terms thereof. Against which several appeals were filed, which were dismissed vide judgment dated 11.4.2019 leading appeal being Special No. - 223 of 2018. The appellants in all those appeals were the same as the appellants who are before this Court in this Bunch of appeals, which remained pending. The judgment dated 11.4.2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar appeal reads as under:- "Since common question of law and fact is involved in all the Special Appeals, all are clubbed together and decided by a common judgment and order. Heard Shri Som Kartik, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Lakshmipat Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. Respondents/writ petitioners had challenged the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Forest Corporation, on the ground that the learned authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to them has passed the impugned order, whereas the law has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) decided on 18 December 2014 in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 arising out S.L.P. (C) No.11684 of 2012. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment, which is relevant for the SPLA No. 224 of 2018 4 present case, reads as under:- "12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize 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. (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." This court in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has passed similar orders including in the matters of Jal Nigam in which the amount recovered has been refunded, which reads as under:- "We are convinced with the argument. We find that since the petitioners are class III employees, they are fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) (Supra) by which the recovery which has been made from the salary of the petitioner was held illegal." Learned Writ court relying upon the aforesaid decision set aside the impugned order and directed that no recovery shall be made from the respondents-employees. With respect to reduction in Grade pay from Rs.5400 to 4800, the writ court directed the appellants to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Relevant paragraphs of the order impugned reads as under:- "So far the reduction in grade pay from Rs.5400 to Rs.4800 is concerned, we permit the opposite parties to take fresh decision in this regard. They will be required to give an opportunity of hearing in writing to the petitioners giving the reasons for downgrading their pay band from Rs.5400 to 4800/- with retrospective effect. The petitioners shall have the liberty of replying to the show cause notice. 5 SPLA No. 224 of 2018 The opposite parties after giving them an opportunity of hearing may pass appropriate orders afresh failing which the order of reduction in rank shall come to an end. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. It is made clear that the order shall be restricted only to case of the petitioners." In view of the aforesaid, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) (Supra), we are of the view that the learned writ court has rightly allowed the writ petitions vide orders impugned by directing that no recovery shall be made. In respect of reduction of Grade pay from Rs.5400 to 4800, the writ court directed to the appellants to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons. Learned counsel for appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Versus Jagdev Singh reported in AIR 2016 SC 3523, regarding the reduction of pay of the employees. However, the same is not in respect of class-III and Class-IV employees and it is only in respect of the principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) of paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) (Supra), therefore, the same is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Special Appeals filed by the appellants have no merit and are accordingly dismissed." quashed

4. The submission is that against this judgment a Special Leave Petition by the appellant i.e. U.P. Forest Corporation and its officers bearing SLP (C) No. 13196 of 2019, has been dismissed on 3rd of July, 2019. He also pointed out that in all the writ petitions the same order i.e. dated 28.11.2013 was challenged. Though order was respondents/petitioners were given benefit of the judgment in State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) decided on 18 December 2014 in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 arising out S.L.P. (C) No.11684 of 2012 and it was observed that the recovery cannot be made from them on account of they being Class III or Class IV employees and if it has been made the amount recovered shall be refunded. The writ petitions were allowed against which the special appeals were filed, which were dismissed on 11.4.2019 by the judgment quoted herein above against which SLP has already been dismissed. The submission therefore is that the Special Appeal No. 301 of 2019 and other connected appeals including Special Appeal No. 224 of 2018 cannot be treated differently as the parties are the same.

5. While filing of Special Appeal No. 301 of 2019 as stated by learned 6 SPLA No. 224 of 2018 counsel for the respondents/petitioners, the appellant-Corporation did not disclose the factum of dismissal of Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 11.4.2019, therefore, the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hand. On being confronted, no satisfactory reply was given by learned counsel for the appellant.

6. It has also been informed and accepted by learned counsel for the appellants that many of the respondents/petitioners have retired though some of them are still in service but it is not in dispute that none were given any notice before issuing the order of recovery.

7. Without entering any further into merits of the matter looking into the scenario which has presented before us as, writ petitions of several others were allowed against which special appeals preferred by the same appellant has already been dismissed and thereafter SLP was filed, which has also been dismissed, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 11.4.2019, accordingly all theses appeals are also dismissed for the reasons already contained therein. amount judgment

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants says that after the earlier respondents/petitioners was refunded to them, therefore, no further order for refund be passed. We accept this contention, if it is correct, however, in the case of those respondents/petitioners from whom the recovery was made but has not been refunded as yet the judgement of the Writ Court shall be complied within six weeks and refund shall be made. recovered . September 1, 2025 Anuj Singh (Manjive Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Arvind Kumar, Abhinav Kumar : C.S.C., Aishwarya Pandey, Ayush Chaudhary, Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Vibhanshu Srivastava SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 160 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Through Its Managing Director And Anr Subhash Chandra Bhatt And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhanshu Srivastava Illegible SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 228 of 2018 2 SPLA No. 224 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Through Managing Director Lko.And Anr. Sunil Jain And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anilesh Tewari Illegible With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 229 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Throu Managing Director Lko.And Anr. Bhupendra Singh Chopra And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anilesh Tewari Illegible With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 374 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Throu Its Managing Director And Anr. Sant Kumar Mishra And Ors. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhanshu Srivastava Illegible With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 375 of 2018 U.P.Forest Corporation Throu Its Managing Director And Anr. 3 Versus SPLA No. 224 of 2018 .....Appellant(s) Devendra Nath Tiwari And Ors. Counsel for Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) : Lakshmipat Shukla, Arvind Kumar, Illegible Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhanshu Srivastava Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. Same order dated 28.11.2013 as was impugned before the Writ Court in these cases was under challenge in Writ Petition no. 7680 (S/S) of 2013. The appellant herein i.e. U.P. Forest Corporation and its officers were opposite parties in the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to argue the matter on merits in Special Appeal No. 301 of 2019 on the ground that the writ petitions had already become infructuous as recovery had already been effected in pursuance to the order dated 28.11.2013 before filing the the writ petition. He also invited our attention to observations contained in the order dated 23.7.2019 passed by this Court in this regard.

3. Sri Vibhansu Srivastava, appearing for the respondent in this Bunch of matters submitted that the benefit of the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed in Writ Petition no. 7680 (S/S) of 2013 was given to other persons in other writ petitions which were allowed in terms thereof. Against which several appeals were filed, which were dismissed vide judgment dated 11.4.2019 leading appeal being Special No. - 223 of 2018. The appellants in all those appeals were the same as the appellants who are before this Court in this Bunch of appeals, which remained pending. The judgment dated 11.4.2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar appeal reads as under:- "Since common question of law and fact is involved in all the Special Appeals, all are clubbed together and decided by a common judgment and order. Heard Shri Som Kartik, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Lakshmipat Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. Respondents/writ petitioners had challenged the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Forest Corporation, on the ground that the learned authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to them has passed the impugned order, whereas the law has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) decided on 18 December 2014 in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 arising out S.L.P. (C) No.11684 of 2012. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment, which is relevant for the SPLA No. 224 of 2018 4 present case, reads as under:- "12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize 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. (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." This court in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has passed similar orders including in the matters of Jal Nigam in which the amount recovered has been refunded, which reads as under:- "We are convinced with the argument. We find that since the petitioners are class III employees, they are fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) (Supra) by which the recovery which has been made from the salary of the petitioner was held illegal." Learned Writ court relying upon the aforesaid decision set aside the impugned order and directed that no recovery shall be made from the respondents-employees. With respect to reduction in Grade pay from Rs.5400 to 4800, the writ court directed the appellants to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Relevant paragraphs of the order impugned reads as under:- "So far the reduction in grade pay from Rs.5400 to Rs.4800 is concerned, we permit the opposite parties to take fresh decision in this regard. They will be required to give an opportunity of hearing in writing to the petitioners giving the reasons for downgrading their pay band from Rs.5400 to 4800/- with retrospective effect. The petitioners shall have the liberty of replying to the show cause notice. 5 SPLA No. 224 of 2018 The opposite parties after giving them an opportunity of hearing may pass appropriate orders afresh failing which the order of reduction in rank shall come to an end. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. It is made clear that the order shall be restricted only to case of the petitioners." In view of the aforesaid, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) (Supra), we are of the view that the learned writ court has rightly allowed the writ petitions vide orders impugned by directing that no recovery shall be made. In respect of reduction of Grade pay from Rs.5400 to 4800, the writ court directed to the appellants to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons. Learned counsel for appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Versus Jagdev Singh reported in AIR 2016 SC 3523, regarding the reduction of pay of the employees. However, the same is not in respect of class-III and Class-IV employees and it is only in respect of the principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) of paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) (Supra), therefore, the same is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Special Appeals filed by the appellants have no merit and are accordingly dismissed." quashed

4. The submission is that against this judgment a Special Leave Petition by the appellant i.e. U.P. Forest Corporation and its officers bearing SLP (C) No. 13196 of 2019, has been dismissed on 3rd of July, 2019. He also pointed out that in all the writ petitions the same order i.e. dated 28.11.2013 was challenged. Though order was respondents/petitioners were given benefit of the judgment in State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) decided on 18 December 2014 in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 arising out S.L.P. (C) No.11684 of 2012 and it was observed that the recovery cannot be made from them on account of they being Class III or Class IV employees and if it has been made the amount recovered shall be refunded. The writ petitions were allowed against which the special appeals were filed, which were dismissed on 11.4.2019 by the judgment quoted herein above against which SLP has already been dismissed. The submission therefore is that the Special Appeal No. 301 of 2019 and other connected appeals including Special Appeal No. 224 of 2018 cannot be treated differently as the parties are the same.

5. While filing of Special Appeal No. 301 of 2019 as stated by learned 6 SPLA No. 224 of 2018 counsel for the respondents/petitioners, the appellant-Corporation did not disclose the factum of dismissal of Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 11.4.2019, therefore, the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hand. On being confronted, no satisfactory reply was given by learned counsel for the appellant.

6. It has also been informed and accepted by learned counsel for the appellants that many of the respondents/petitioners have retired though some of them are still in service but it is not in dispute that none were given any notice before issuing the order of recovery.

7. Without entering any further into merits of the matter looking into the scenario which has presented before us as, writ petitions of several others were allowed against which special appeals preferred by the same appellant has already been dismissed and thereafter SLP was filed, which has also been dismissed, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 11.4.2019, accordingly all theses appeals are also dismissed for the reasons already contained therein. amount judgment

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants says that after the earlier respondents/petitioners was refunded to them, therefore, no further order for refund be passed. We accept this contention, if it is correct, however, in the case of those respondents/petitioners from whom the recovery was made but has not been refunded as yet the judgement of the Writ Court shall be complied within six weeks and refund shall be made. recovered . September 1, 2025 Anuj Singh (Manjive Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments