AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2023, passed by respondent no.3, by which an amount of ₹3,08,619/- was recovered from gratuity of the petitioner.
It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working with the respondent-Department as Process Server/Peon and he retired on 31.07.2023. After retirement of the petitioner, a PPO was issued to the petitioner on 15.12.2023, wherefrom it got to the knowledge of the petitioner that an amount of ₹3,08,619/- was recovered from amount of gratuity of the petitioner, for the reason that some excess payment was allegedly made in favour of the petitioner.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Jude, Tehri-Garhwal has issued a office memorandum dated 16.01.2010, by which District Judge, Tehri Garhwal sanctioned the increased pay-scale of ₹2750/- 70/- 3800/- 75/- 4400/- in place of ₹2550/-3200/- to the Process Server/Peon w.e.f., 01.04.2003.
The copy of the order is annexed as annexure no.3 to the writ petition. The arrear of the aforesaid amount was paid to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the excess payment has been made to the petitioner by the respondent-Department, during his service period and in excess payment, there is no mis-representation or fault even alleged by the respondent against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner place his reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Maish reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 and on the strength of the aforesaid judgment, it is contended that the recovery order deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that at the time of retirement an indemnity bond has been filled up by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that in case any excess payment is made to the petitioner, he will return that payment to the State Government.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the judgment of Rafiq Maish (supra), this Court intends to allow the present writ petition.
So far as argument of learned State counsel of indemnity bond is concerned that indemnity bond was submitted by the petitioner at the time of retirement, however no such bond or undertaking has ever been given by the petitioner at the time of sanctioning of the pay-scale office memorandum dated 16.01.2010.
In this view of the circumstances the recovery which has been made by the respondent from the gratuity of the petitioner cannot sustain and same is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to immediately repay to the petitioner the amount illegally recovered from gratuity of the petitioner, who is a Class-IV Employee, within a period not later than two months, by way of a demand draft or by any other suitable mode.