AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)to allow the present original application by issuing suitable order/direction to the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs.675678/- from settlement dues (DCRG) alongwith admissible interest;
(ii)to issue any other suitable order or directions in favour of the applicants as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(iii)to award the cost of the Original application in favour of applicants.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant retired as MCM in PB Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200/- Level-6 and his pension was fixed vide PPO No.20257041700181 dated 29.12.2025. At the time of retirement Rs.675678/- is said to be recovered from the DCRG under the head of over payment. Aggrieved, the applicant submitted representation dated 06.03.2026 but no heed was paid by the respondents. Hence, the present O.A.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that without showing any cogent reason or giving show cause notice and affording any opportunity of hearing, the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the retiral dues of the applicant. It is further submitted that the wrong fixation, if any, has been made without any misrepresentation or fault on part of the applicant. It is, therefore, contended that the said recovery is illegal and against the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696] decided on 18.12.2014. Thus, prayer was made to allow the O.A. and direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount along with admissible interest.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that during audit and scrutiny of the applicant’s service records prior to retirement, a major pay anomaly was detected dating back to 01.07.2006. Furthermore, it was discovered that the applicant was erroneously/wrongly granted MACP benefits on 01.09.2008. Therefore, his pay was rightly re-fixed from Rs.13800/- (GP 2000) down to Rs.13290/- (GP 1900) to correct administrative mistake. Thus, prayer was made to dismiss the O.A. for want of merit.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents record.
In the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696] decided on 18.12.2014, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held 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, 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.
(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.
In the present case, the recovery has been made from the gratuity of the applicant after his retirement. Apparently, there was no misrepresentation or fault on part of the applicant in the wrong fixation of pay. The applicant has also not been given any opportunity of hearing. Further the wrong pay fixation was done far back in the year 2006 which has continued due to administrative error. Under these circumstances, the recovery made from the applicant is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) specifically as mentioned in paragraph 12 (ii) of the said judgement which has been quoted in the preceding paragraph.
Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the entire amount recovered from the applicant from his post retiral benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which an interest at the rate of GPF will be attracted.
All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.