Court No. - 6 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4916 of 2007 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- Deputy Director, Treasury & Pension & Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- A.R. Masoodi Respondent Counsel :- C.Sc.. Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Sri A.R. Masoodi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel.
The sole grievance of the petitioner is that after his retirement, on 31.1. 2006 a
recovery has been issued against him on 15.3. 2007. This was done because of
wrong fixation of the salary of petitioner done way back in the year 1985 with
effect from 30.1. 1986. The petitioner says that there was no fault on his part.
He had neither manipulated nor done anything to obtain such an order of
fixation. It was erroneous fixation on the part of the opposite parties and as
such the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same, hence the petitioner filed
the writ petition and an interim order was also granted on 18.8. 2007.
Later on, counter- affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties, in which the
opposite parties have categorically stated that the promotional pay scale,
which was given to the petitioner on 30.1. 1986 was erroneously given to him
and as a result of which, the petitioner was paid excess amount by mistake.
They further say that a recovery letter was issued on 31.7. 2007. In pursuance
of this recovery letter, an amount of Rs. 1,61,841/-, which was excessively
paid to the petitioner has been recovered by way of non payment of gratuity.
The petitioner says that on the basis of the counter- affidavit, the case is
crystal clear and it is admitted on the part of the opposite parties that there
was no fault of the petitioner nor he had any hand in manipulating this excess
amount. He has placed reliance on the case of Shyam Babu Verma and
others vs. Union of India and others reported in 1994(2) SCC- 521 In para-
12 of the report, it has been categorically stated that since the petitioners have
received higher pay scale due to no fault of theirs, it shall only be just and
proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further says that this judgment has
steadfastly been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases and
there has been no deviation in the philosophy of the Supreme Court, so far
this issue is concerned.
Accordingly, the Court quashes the impugned order dated 31.7.2006 as
contained in annexure- 1 to the writ petition as well as the consequential order
dated 15.3. 2007 as contained in annexure- 7 to the writ petition and directs
the opposite parties to release the recovered amount, to the petitioner,
forthwith. The writ petition is finally allowed.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
Sadiq