Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi vs Deputy Director, Treasury and Pension and Another

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 (UOI) and Others, 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.