The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with the order of a single-judge bench to refund Rs 6,53,869 recovered from the retired policemen in three months due to wrong pay fixation.
The Division Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Special Appeal filed by State of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others.
This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed questioning the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge dated September 22, 2021, whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the respondents therein have been directed to refund the amount of Rs 6,53,869 to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order and further direction has been issued that in the event, the amount is not paid within three months, the respondents would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Also read: India Legal Editor Inderjit Badhwar on the big stories of March 7 issue
The Court noted that the writ petition was filed challenging the order dated February 11, 2021 whereby the pension of the petitioner had been re-fixed and amount of Rs 6,53,869 allegedly paid on account of wrong fixation of salary was sought to be recovered from the dues of the petitioner.
The Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, in order to hold that the recovery of the amount from the writ petitioner is bad in law and contrary to the aforesaid judgment.
The Court further noted that the order of the Single Judge has been assailed principally on the ground that the Single Judge erred in law in extending benefit of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others versus Rafiq Masih (supra) to the case of the writ petitioner inasmuch as the writ petitioner despite having knowledge that he was not entitled to the benefit of the first promotional pay scale in the year 1999, continued to obtain the said benefit and as such, misrepresented and mislead the authorities to obtain the said benefit.
Also read: Supreme Court issues notice to Punjab Congress chief Navjot Sidhu in road rage case
Counsel submitted that the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court was clearly not attracted to the case of the writ petitioner and the Single Judge erred in law in holding otherwise.
The Court found,
“A perusal of the order of the Single Judge reveals that the stand of the appellant, in the counter affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, was that the recovery was in pursuance of wrong fixation of salary starting from the period of the year 1999 onwards. The Single Judge has observed that the case of the writ petitioner was squarely covered by Para 12 (iii) of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab & others versus Rafiq Masih (supra). We also find that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud attributed to the writ petitioner-respondent. The fixation of the salary of the writ petitioner was a conscious act of the appellant, who was in seisin of the entire facts pertaining to the writ petitioner.”
Also read: Girl above 18 has right to live, marry by own will: Allahabad High Court
“We are of the view that the Single Judge has rightly granted relief to the writ petitioner-respondent relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others versus Rafiq Masih (supra). In such circumstances, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Single Judge and find no reason to interfere in this intra-court appeal,” the Court observed while dismissing the appeal.