AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has challenged the order/office note dated 09.09.2024 passed by respondent No.5 whereby an amount of Rs.9,46,875/- has been assessed to be recovered from the retiral dues of petitioner.
Facts, in nutshell, are that on 01.02.1984, petitioner was appointed as Toll Mohrir in the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Naintal. After completion of 12 years’ service, he was granted the benefit of selection grade w.e.f. 01.02.1996; and upon completion of 06 years’ service on selection grade, he was granted the benefit of promotional payscale w.e.f. 01.02.2002. By order dated 13.03.2012, petitioner was notionally promoted to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 23.11.2007 and by order dated 26.06.2014, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk/Clerk grade-I; petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2023 and he was accordingly retired.
It is the case of respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad that excess payment has been made to the petitioner on account of incorrect fixation and thus, an amount of Rs. 9,46,875/- was directed to be recovered from the post retiral dues of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not played any fraud upon the municipal authorities nor he misrepresented the facts and whatever amount was released to the petitioner, was as per the pay fixation made by the competent authority. He submits that in view of law declared by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334, petitioner is not liable to any recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023 (Surendra Dutt Gairola v. State of Uttarakhand and others).
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht as well as learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents concede that identical issue was decided in that judgment. They, therefore, submit that they have no objection, if the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023.
In view of the consensus between the parties, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. The Municipal Authorities shall be at liberty to make recovery, if either of the two conditions mentioned in paragraph no. 14 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023, are fulfilled. The competent authority shall examine as to whether petitioner’s case falls in any of the two contingencies mentioned in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023 and if it is found that his case does not fall in any of the two contingencies, the amount of Rs.9,46,875/- recovered from the post retiral dues of the petitioner, shall be released to him within one month from today.