गलती विभाग की हो तो अधिक भुगतान की वसूली गलत : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट का अहम फैसला।
■ गलती विभाग की हो तो अधिक भुगतान की वसूली गलत : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि यदि विभाग की स्वयं की गलती से कर्मचारी को अधिक भुगतान कर दिया गया है तो विभाग कर्मचारी से अधिक भुगतान की वापसी नहीं कर सकता। कोर्ट ने सतर्कता अधिष्ठान इलाहाबाद के सेवानिवृत्त इंस्पेक्टर को हुए अधिक भुगतान की वसूली के संबंध में तीन माह में नए सिरे से निर्णय लेने का निर्देश दिया है और कहा है कि वसूली, याचिका में पारित होने वाले आदेश पर निर्भर करेगी।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अश्वनी कुमार मिश्र ने शारंगधर द्विवेदी की याचिका पर दिया है। याचिका पर अधिवक्ता एचएल पांडेय ने बहस की। याची का कहना है कि उसे 95,446 रुपये अधिक भुगतान की वापसी की नोटिस दी गई है। उसे अधिक भुगतान विभाग की गलत गणना के चलते किया गया है इसमें याची की कोई भूमिका नहीं रही है। याची अधिवक्ता ने इस संबंध में शीर्ष कोर्ट के फैसले का हवाला दिया जिस पर कोर्ट ने राज्य सरकार को नए सिरे से निर्णय लेने का आदेश दिया है।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19066 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sharangdhar Dwivedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Lal Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner has retired from the post of Inspector in U.P. Police on 31.07.2016. Much after his retirement, an order has been passed against the petitioner, holding that petitioner was paid excess amount while he was in service and consequently a recovery of a sum of Rs. 95,446/- is proposed to be made from the leave encashment amount of the petitioner. For such reason, petitioner's leave encashment has also been withheld. The order is challenged on the ground that neither any notice, nor any opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned.
In State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 332, following observations have been made in paragraph-12:-
"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) from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of is issued.
(iv) 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 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."
Submission is that there was no misrepresentation on part of petitioner and therefore, the authorities were not justified in effecting recovery, particularly, when the petitioner was not at fault.
Learned standing counsel submits that the authority concerned be permitted to re-visit the issue.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the authority concerned to examine the petitioner's grievance in light of principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) by passing a fresh reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The order impugned shall remain subject to the fresh orders to be passed, as indicated above.
Order Date :- 7.9.2018
n.u.
