इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने यूपी पुलिस से सेवानिवृत्त इंस्पेक्टर जय प्रकाश राम एवं दरोगा अनार सिंह के सेवानिवृत्त लाभों से की गई वसूली के आदेश को रद्द कर दिया है। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति प्रकाश पाडिया ने दोनों की याचिकाओं पर वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता विजय गौतम और सरकारी वकील को सुनकर दिया है। कोर्ट ने पुलिस विभाग के उच्चाधिकारियों को याचियों से की गई कटौती की धनराशि पांच लाख 81 हजार 444 रुपये ब्याज सहित तीन माह में भुगतान करने का निर्देश दिया है।
रिटायर पुलिसकर्मियों के वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता विजय गौतम का कहना था कि यह कटौती बगैर विभागीय जांच और विभागीय कार्यवाही सम्पादित किए बगैर की गई है। साथ ही वसूली का आदेश भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 300 (ए) का उल्लंघन है। इसलिए कटौती का आदेश नियम व कानून के विरुद्ध है। यह भी कहा कि स्टेट ऑफ पंजाब बनाम रफीक मसीह एवं थॉमस डेनियल बनाम केरल राज्य में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के फैसले में यह स्पष्ट किया है कि राज्य सरकार के तृतीय एवं चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारियों से सेवानिवृत्ति के बाद अधिक धनराशि की वसूली एवं कटौती नहीं की जा सकती, अगर कर्मचारी ने स्वयं कोई धोखे से या घपला करके धनराशि न ली हो।
मामले के तथ्यों के अनुसार दोनों की सेवानिवृत्ति के बाद उनके ग्रेच्युटी एवं पेंशन से कटौती कर ली गई थी। कहा गया था कि याचियों को उनके सेवाकाल में अधिक वेतन भुगतान किया गया है।
वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता का तर्क था कि याचियों को सेवा के दौरान जो वेतन दिया गया है वह शासनादेशों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में बिल्कुल सही है और इसमें याचियों की कोई गलती नहीं थी।
WRIT – A No. – 4483 of 2024 at Allahabad : Jai Prakash Ram Vs. State Of Up And 7 Others
Date of Decision – 20/3/2024
Court Number – 35
Judgment Type – Final Non AFR
Coram – Hon’ble Prakash Padia,J.
Petitioner’s Counsels – Ambuj Maurya , Atipriya Gautam and Jay Vishwanath Pandey
Respondent’s Counsel – C.S.C.
Hon’ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atipriya Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed stating that the petitioner has retired from the post of Sub Inspector on 31.03.2023.
3. It is stated that after the retirement, certain dues amounting Rs.3,71,059/- have been deducted/ recovered from the post retiral benefit which according to the petitioner is contrary to law.
4. Learned Standing Counsel argues that the recovery certificate has been issued on account of wrong fixation of salary.
5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as impugned order. Facts of the case are undisputed. Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334 while dealing with such dispute, had framed following guidelines:-
“12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from 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.”
6. Undisputedly, case of petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and petitioner was not responsible for fixation of incorrect pay scale and consequently for excess payment.
7. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 22.12.2023 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.4 is directed to release the entire deducted amount of Rs.5,81,444/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8. In case, the amount of Rs.3,71,059/- is not released within the aforesaid period, same shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of its payment.
9. However, respondents are at liberty to file a recall application within a period of two months if this order is obtained by the petitioner by concealing material fact.
Order Date :- 20.3.2024