Doli Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.286 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been disposed of finding the same to be without any merit, however with liberty to the writ petitioner to raise her grievance regarding certain more amounts having been deducted from the death-cum-retiral benefits of her deceased husband by filing an exhaustive representation before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jamui, which has been directed to be considered in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

The brief facts of the case, according to the appellant are that her husband was appointed as Panchayat Secretary vide Memo dated 27.11.1996 and posted at Laxmipur Block, however he died in harness on 07.06.2016 in a road accident while posted under Gidhaur Block, whereupon the appellant had applied for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits of her husband and ultimately P.O. and G.P.O. were issued on 31.01.2019. It is the case of the appellant that the respondents have recovered a sum of Rs.3,66,450/- without giving notice and without showing as to how the said amount is recoverable from the husband of the appellant. In fact, a further sum of Rs. 4,05,917/- was also directed to be recovered but the appellant had deposited the same in the bank account of the respondent.

It is the further case of the appellant that the Block Development Officer, Gidhaur had issued a letter dated 03.04.2018 wherein it has been stated that the husband of the appellant had taken a sum of Rs. 4,38,450/- and deductions were being made from his salary @ 8000/- per month, however only Rs. 72,000/- could be recovered, thus balance amount of Rs.3,66,450/- is recoverable apart from a sum of Rs.4,05,917/-being recoverable by the Block Development Officer, Jamui, hence the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,66,450/- in the account of Block Development Officer, Gidhaur and a sum of Rs.4,05,917/- in the account of Block Development Officer, Jamui. The Block Development Officer, Jamui had also issued a letter dated 16.03.2019 wherein it has been stated that a sum of Rs.4,05,917/-, which is Panchayat money and was given by way of advance to the husband of the appellant is recoverable, however the same has been deposited by the son of the appellant in the account of the Panchayat.

The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid letters dated 03.04.2018 and 16.03.2019, issued by the Block Development Officers, Gidhaur and Jamui respectively, had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No.286 of 2021, inter alia praying therein to quash the said letters dated 03.04.2018 and 16.03.2019 and direct the respondent-authorities to refund the aforesaid recoverable amount to the tune of Rs.7,72,367/- along with interest @ 9 per cent per annum. The respondents had filed counter affidavit to the aforesaid writ petition before the writ Court inter alia stating therein that the deceased husband of the appellant, late Birendra Kumar was Panchayat Secretary in the district of Jamui and was posted at Laxmipur Block, Jamui Block and Gidhaur Block, however he died while posted at Gidhaur Block in the year 2016. The deceased husband of the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.4,38,450/-under the pension head and had also taken advance of Rs.4,05,917/- while he was posted at Jamui Block, hence the Block Development Officer, Jamui had written a letter dated 03.04.2018 to the appellant stating therein that her husband had taken a sum of Rs.4,38,450/- under pension head & in lieu of the same, he was depositing a sum of Rs.8000/- per month, thus he had deposited a total sum of Rs.72,000/-, hence the balance amount of Rs.3,66,450/- is recoverable. The Block Development Officer, Gidhaur had also informed the appellant vide letter dated 03.04.2018 that a further sum of Rs.4,05,917/- which had been withdrawn by the husband of the appellant by way of advance from the amount pertaining to royalty of sale tax deduction is also required to be deposited in the Block Office, Jamui.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,72,367/- remains to be paid to the appellant and the same had been recovered/deposited without any show-cause notice being issued to the appellant, hence the same is illegal. It is also submitted that on account of pressure on the son of the appellant to deposit the said amount in case he wants to obtain compassionate appointment, the son of the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.4,05,917/-. The Ld. counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, has submitted that recovery has been made illegally, i.e. in the teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) as also in the teeth of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the aforesaid sums of money was not only taken by way of advance by the deceased husband of the appellant but he had also withdrawn sums pertaining to royalty and sales tax deduction pertaining to BRGF project, hence this is not a case where recovery is being sought to be made of such amount which had been paid in excess by the respondents to the deceased husband of the appellant without any misrepresentation on his part, however the amount sought to be recovered is the amount of advance which was taken by the deceased husband of the appellant and / or the amount of royalty/sales tax deduction which was illegal withdrawn by the husband of the appellant.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record from which it is apparent that the appellant has not contradicted the fact that the recovery made/being made by the respondents is legitimate or that the aforesaid sums of money had not been taken by the husband of the appellant by way of advance or were not withdrawn by him. Therefore, admittedly the present case is not a case of payment of excess salary to the deceased husband of the appellant without any fault or misrepresentation on his part rather the present case is a case where advance taken by the deceased husband of the appellant has been adjusted/sought to be recovered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and not applicable.

It is a well settled law that where the employee had the knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the Court will not grant relief against recovery. In this connection, reference be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709. We may also refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 26.

Thus, the present case is a case where the aforesaid sums of money were not only taken by way of advance by the deceased husband of the appellant but he had also withdrawn sums pertaining to royalty and sales tax deduction pertaining to BRGF project, which have remained incontrovertible. We also find that the son of the appellant has voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. Rs.4,05,917/- in the bank account of the respondents, which clearly goes to demonstrate that the appellant was aware of the fact that her husband had taken advance from the respondent which was required to be refunded/returned back to the respondents.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, inasmuch as no infirmity can be found in the impugned order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.286 of 2021, hence the present appeal stands dismissed.