AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammed Nias.C.P.J.,
The Review Petition is filed by the appellant seeking a review of the judgment in W.A. No. 1721 of 2018 which was filed against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 16643 of 2012.
The Writ Petition was filed by the review petitioners challenging Exts. P1, P4 and P10 orders that appropriated an amount of Rs. 1,08,163/- from the first petitioner and Rs. 80,162/- from the second petitioner on the basis of the audit objections that found the petitioners received excess amounts to which they were not eligible.
The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found that the review petitioners had not challenged the recovery either on retirement or even immediately thereafter and their present case was for the disbursal of the amounts, which were already recovered from their retirement benefits. The request to return such amounts were turned down by Ext. P10 order. In that view of the matter, it was found that by the passage of time, the claim raised by the petitioners have become stale and it was years later that they had filed representations to refund the amount recovered much earlier which was rightly turned down by the respondents by Ext. P10 order. Against the dismissal of the Writ Petition, review petitioners filed W.A. No. 1721 of 2021, wherein apart from affirming the finding of the learned Single Judge, that the amounts are recovered from the review petitioners long back and the claim for re-reimbursement was sought belatedly, it was further held that the review petitioners were holding the post of Assistant General manager and Branch Manager, who cannot be treated as belonging to that class of the employees covered by the decision in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [2015 (4) SCC 334] and that the decision relied on W.A. 925/2017 were not applicable to the review petitioners.
Learned counsel for the review petitioners urged the same grounds on merits which we cannot consider in a review petition. The absence of a challenge to the recovery at the relevant point of time by the review petitioners and the fact that the petitioners do not belong to the class of employees protected from recovery by the decision in Rafiq Masih (Supra), disentitles the review petitioner from seeking any relief. We do not think that there is any error apparent on the face of record, or any analogous reason warranting a review in the instant case. The Review Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.