The Allahabad High Court, presided by Justice J.J. Munir, has delivered an interim relief to Shashi Kumar, a retired Head Clerk from the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rampur, by suspending recovery orders amounting to ₹4,20,045. The judgment emphasizes the principles of fair hearing and the illegality of arbitrary recovery from retired employees.
Background of the Case
Shashi Kumar, retired on November 30, 2014, had his pay fixation revised twice—once in his favor (December 14, 2023) and later revoked to restore an earlier fixation from July 15, 2011. The subsequent recovery order issued on September 11, 2024, by the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti, directed Shashi Kumar to repay ₹4,20,045, allegedly overpaid due to the revised fixation.
The petitioner contested the recovery, citing a lack of prior notice or opportunity to present his case, a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. He further argued that being a retired Group-C employee, he could not be held liable for errors in pay fixation.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Natural Justice and Opportunity to be Heard:
The petitioner alleged that the recovery orders were issued without any notice, rendering them prima facie illegal as they imposed adverse civil consequences.
2. Recovery from Retired Group-C Employees:
Drawing from legal precedents, the petitioner contended that recovery from retired employees, particularly those in Group-C, is restricted when the error in payment was not attributable to them.
3. Binding Nature of Undertakings:
The petitioner had signed an undertaking to refund any excess amount if the revised fixation was incorrect. The legal question centered on whether such undertakings are enforceable against retired Group-C employees.
Court’s Observations
Justice Munir observed:
– “Prima facie, the impugned orders, being ones passed without any opportunity of hearing and adverse to the petitioner’s interest, are manifestly illegal.”
– Relying on S.S. Chaudhary v. State of H.P. and Rafiq Masih, the court noted that recovery from Group-C employees, whether retired or in service, is barred if the overpayment was not due to their fault and exceeds five years.
The court highlighted:
– “What the employer cannot resort to against Class-III/Group-C employees while in service, cannot be done post-retirement, as it would amount to arbitrary and inequitable treatment.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court admitted the petition, stayed the operation of the recovery orders dated August 9, 2024, and September 11, 2024, and directed the respondents to refrain from making any recoveries from Shashi Kumar until further notice. The matter has been listed for further orders on December 12, 2024.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Shashi Kumar
– Counsel: Anuj Mishra and Kunal Shah
– Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
– Counsel: Kartikeya Saran, Archit Mandhyan, and Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi
