Ramesh Chandra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is claiming his retiral dues. He retired from the service on 28.02.2023. But, since then, neither his retiral dues have been paid nor pension granted to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to irregularities in the pay fixation, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to deposit certain amount. He would submit that insofar as, the pension is concerned, Sub-Committee has already been constituted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On being asked, learned State counsel admits that the petitioner did not make any misrepresentation or did not play any fraud with the system. He is not responsible for any payment that has been made to him. But, he would submit that excess payment has been made to the petitioner. He also admits that the petitioner is a Group D employee.

The matter may not be kept pending for all reasons indefinitely. The recovery may not be made from a person like the petitioner.

In the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines on this subject and in para 18 observed as follows:-

“18. 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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.

The petitioner is a Group D employee, who retired in the year 2023. He has not received any retiral dues or pension since then. It is a very sorry state of affairs. It is also admitted that the petitioner did not make any representation or did not play any fraud.

By impugned communication dated 22.09.2023, the petitioner has been directed to deposit excess payment in the Treasury. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 22.09.2023 is not in accordance with law and it deserves to be set aside.

The impugned communication dated 22.09.2023 is set aside accordingly.

The respondents are directed to pay the gratuity, leave encashment and other admitted dues to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today.

The respondent no.5, the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal shall ensure it. If it is not made, it shall be construed as his willful disobedience. It is stated that with regard to the pension, the Committee has already been constituted, which is looking into the matter. In that respect, respondents/ State may file a short affidavit within next three weeks.

List on 20.05.2025.