# Om Pal Singh v. Meerut Development Authority & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 66
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-16
- **Case number:** J. Writ A No. 8474 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-pal-singh-v-meerut-development-authority-ors-47918
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Recovery of excess
payment - Recovery from Class-III and
Class-IV employees much after the date of
their retirement for any excess payment
made to them during their course of
service would be inequitable. (Para 5)

The Supreme Court in the case of St. of
Haryana Vs Jagdev Singh (infra) has permitted
recovery of excess payment to employees if at
the time of pay fixation an undertaking
was given by them that the authorities
would be free to recover any excess
payment made to them when discovered
subsequently. (Para 8)

It is not the case of the Meerut Development
Authority that any undertaking was sought
from the petitioner or was given by him at the
time of his initial pay fixation as far back as in
1986,
when
the
Revenue
Department's
Lekhpal pay scale of Rs. 950-1,500/- was
given
to
him,
and
consequently,
next
promotional pay scale of higher pay scale
were also given to him.
The excess
payment if any paid to the petitioner
due to the fault on the part of the
Authority
themselves
without
any
misrepresentation of fraud having been
played by the petitioner cannot be now
recovered from him. (Para 9)

The impugned order of recovery is set aside.
The already recovered amount shall be refunded
to the petitioner...However, it shall be open for
the respondent to give him revised pension as
per the correct pay fixation by issuing revised
Pension Payment Order. (Para 10, 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner no.1 and the judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court in the case of Dev
Prakash Tewari (supra) shall squarely
applly as at the time of retirement, there was
no Regulation permitting such initiation of
disciplinary
proceedings
or
their
continuation.

10. This Court has carefully considered
the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court
in Dev Prakash Tewari (supra) where the
Supreme Court had followed the judgment
rendered by it earlier in Bhagirathi Jena Vs.
Orissa State Financial Corporation [(1999)
3 SCC 666] where it was held that in the
absence of any provision in the Regulations
governing the service of an employee
providing for continuation of disciplinary
proceedings after retirement, the respondent
cannot continue the disciplinary proceedings
after the employee's superannuation.

11. The State of U.P., no doubt notified
the XXII Amendment to the Regulations of
1975 but it provided the date of enforcement
as the date of publication in the Gazette.
Publication was made only on 27.08.2018 in
the official Gazette. Hence, no retrospective
operation can be given to the Regulations and
the Registrar could not have given sanction
on 09.02.2021 for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against the husband of the
petitioner no.1.

12. This Court has also considered the
Division Bench judgment in the case of
Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
(supra), while placing reliance upon the
judgment rendered in Bhagirathi Jena
(supra), the Division Bench observed that the
post of contesting respondent being non
pensionable, Article 351-A of Civil Services
Regulation was not applicable. After the date
of
superannuation,
the
disciplinary
proceedings could not go on in the absence of
any specific provision. The Court also held
that contesting respondent was entitled to
interest on the amount payable to him.

13. Having considered the judgments
rendered by this Court and by the Supreme
Court and the facts as mentioned in the
pleadings on record regarding which there is no
dispute, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against late husband of the petitioner no.1 is
without jurisdiction as he retired on 31.07.2018
much before the amendment in the Regulation
was notified with prospective effect.

14. The proceedings initiated against
late Ram Nazar Singh being without
jurisdiction are liable to be quashed and are
quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

15. Consequential benefits shall be
available to the petitioners. Recovery of
Rs.11,80,363/- from the gratuity and other
services benefits of late Ram Nazar Singh, if
the same has been deducted, shall be
refunded to the petitioners along with 6%
compound interest as had the amount been
deposited in a Bank by the petitioners on its
receipt in time, they would have been entitled
to bank's rate of interest on such deposit.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 66
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.

Writ A No. 8474 of 2021

Om Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Meerut Development Authority & Ors.
 ...Respondents
11 All. Om Pal Singh Vs. Meerut Development Authority & Ors.
67
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Adarsh Singh, Sri Indra Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jagannath Maurya, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Pandey

A. Service Law - Recovery of excess
payment - Recovery from Class-III and
Class-IV employees much after the date of
their retirement for any excess payment
made to them during their course of
service would be inequitable. (Para 5)

The Supreme Court in the case of St. of
Haryana Vs Jagdev Singh (infra) has permitted
recovery of excess payment to employees if at
the time of pay fixation an undertaking
was given by them that the authorities
would be free to recover any excess
payment made to them when discovered
subsequently. (Para 8)

It is not the case of the Meerut Development
Authority that any undertaking was sought
from the petitioner or was given by him at the
time of his initial pay fixation as far back as in
1986,
when
the
Revenue
Department's
Lekhpal pay scale of Rs. 950-1,500/- was
given
to
him,
and
consequently,
next
promotional pay scale of higher pay scale
were also given to him.
The excess
payment if any paid to the petitioner
due to the fault on the part of the
Authority
themselves
without
any
misrepresentation of fraud having been
played by the petitioner cannot be now
recovered from him. (Para 9)

The impugned order of recovery is set aside.
The already recovered amount shall be refunded
to the petitioner...However, it shall be open for
the respondent to give him revised pension as
per the correct pay fixation by issuing revised
Pension Payment Order. (Para 10, 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. St. of Punjab & ors. Vs Rafiq Masih, AIR 2015
SC 796 (Para 5)
2. Thomas Daniel Vs of Kerala, 2022 SCC Online
SC 536 (Para 9)

Precedent distinguished:

1. St. of Har. Vs Jagdev Singh 2016 (14) SCC
267 (Para 8)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
17.05.2019, passed by Officer-in-Charge
(Establishment),
Meerut
Development
Authority,
Meerut
and
order
dated
03.06.2019, passed by Finance Controller,
Officer-in-Charge (Establishment), Meerut
Development Authority, Meerut.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents No. 1 to 3 and learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State Respondents No. 4 and 5.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the Order dated
17.05.2019 passed by the Respondents
No.2 and the Order dated 03.06.2019
passed by the Respondent No.3.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
he was appointed on the post of Lekhpal on
16.10.1978
in
Meerut
Development
Authority and after completing 36 years
and 8 months of service, retired on
30.06.2015. The respondent no. 2 approved
the grant of Gratuity, GPF and Leave
Encashment dues to the petitioner by his
order dated 29.06.2015. However, it
appears that an audit team was constituted
which conducted an audit of the Meerut
Development Authority of the Financial
Year 2013-14 and submitted an objection
with regard to payment of excess salary to
the petitioner on account of wrong pay
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fixation made by the department. On
account of such audit objection, it was
reported that Rs. 7,08,502/- had been paid
in excess to the petitioner as salary and
alowgwith allowances. The total amount
paid in excess came out to be Rs.
10,43,724/-. Such audit objections were
directed by the Vice Chairman, Meerut
Development Authority to be examined by
a Committee by his order dated 31.01.2018.
The Committee also submitted a report on
16.03.2019 saying that the petitioner was
appointed in the Development Authority, he
could not have been given the salary of
Lekhpal as admissible to the Revenue
Department, and therefore, recommended
the audit objections to be accepted and
consequent revision in pay and allowances
and final pension payment order to be made
and the excess payment to be recovered
from the retiral dues of the petitioner. As a
result of such report being submitted on
16.03.2019, an order dated 17.05.2019 was
passed by the respondent no.2 directing
recovery of Rs. 10,43,724/- from the
Gratuity and Leave Encashment of the
petitioner. Consequently, recovery was
made of Rs.8,43,025/- from the Gratuity
and Leave Encashment dues of the
petitioner, but Rs.02,00,699/- remained to
be adjusted for which a recovery order was
passed on 03.06.2019 by the Respondent
No.3 directing the petitioner deposit such
amount of Rs.02,00,699/- in the Meerut
Development Authority or else the same
may
be
recovered
by
the
Meerut
Development Authority by other means.

4. It has been argued by the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
respondent no. 1 proceeded to fix final
pension of the petitioner by making
amendment in the provisional pension
being granted to the petitioner and reduce
the amount of pension from Rs.10,075 to
Rs.7,505/-
retrospectively
w.e.f.
01.07.2015. The petitioner is a retired
Class-III employee, who has been made to
suffer by the Respondents Authority
without any fault on his part by recovering
the excess amount paid to him from his
pension, Gratuity and other retirement
dues.

5. It has been argued that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, AIR
2015 Supreme Court 796 has observed that
recovery from Class-III and Class-IV
employees much after the date of their
retirement for any excess payment made to
them during their course of service would
be inequitable.

6. It has also been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that this
Court in Writ-A No. 14330 of 2019, 'Suresh
Chandra vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others',
relating to an identically situated Lekhpal
in Meerut Development Authority had
allowed the Writ Petition on 11.07.2022 by
referring to the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih
(Supra), a copy of the order dated
11.07.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench
in the case of Suresh Chandra has been
filed by the petitioner before this Court by
way of an amendment application.

7. The Meerut Development Authority in
its counter affidavit has mentioned about the
audit objections and the constitution of the
committee by the Vice Chairman by its order
dated 17.09.2018 which committee found that
the then Vice Chairman by his order dated
15.11.1994, without taking any approval from
the Government had implemented the pay
scale of Rs. 950-1,500/- which was a pay scale
of Lekhpal of Revenue Department to
11 All. The U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Subachan Ram Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Prayagraj & Anr. 69
Lekhpals of Meerut Development Authority
actually they should have been given pay scale
of Rs.825-1,200/- only. The petitioner was
thereafter given promotional pay scale of Tax
and Revenue Officer of the Revenue
Department of Rs. 1,350-2200/- instead of
promotional pay scale of Tax and Revenue
Officer of the Meerut Development Authority
which was only Rs.975-1,660/-. The petitioner
was again granted second promotional pay
scale
of
Naib
Tehsildar
of
Revenue
Department of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- instead of
next pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/- as was
admissible
for
employees
of
Meerut
Development Authority. Such pay scales were
given to the petitioner without taking sanction
from
the
Government,
therefore,
the
Department of Local Funds, Audit & Accounts
raised
an
objection
and
recommended
recovery of Rs. 07,08,502/- from the petitioner
paid in excess. In consequence of the
recommendations of the committee formed by
the Vice Chairman and Government Order
dated 20.07.2018, the Pension Payment Order
of the petitioner has been revised and the
amount paid in excess has been recovered
from his Gratuity and Leave Encashment dues.
The remaining amount is yet to be recovered,
and therefore, the recovery order has been
issued by the respondent no.3.

8. Learned counsel for the State
Respondents has argued that the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana vs.
Jagdev Singh 2016 (14) SCC 267 has
permitted recovery of excess payment to
employees if at the time of pay fixation an
undertaking was given by them that the
authorities would be free to recover any excess
payment made to them when discovered
subsequently.

9. However, it is not the case of the
Meerut Development Authority that any
undertaking was sought from the petitioner or
was given by him at the time of his initial pay
fixation as far back as in 1986, when the
Revenue Department's Lekhpal pay scale of
Rs 950-1,500/- was given to him, and
consequently, next promotional pay scale of
higher pay scale were also given to him. In
view of the observations made by the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Punjab and
Others Vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) and
Others, AIR 2015 Supreme Court 796 and
also in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of
Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 536, wherein the
excess payment if any paid to the petitioner
due to the fault on the part of the Authority
themselves without any misrepresentation of
fraud having been played by the petitioner
cannot be now recovered from him.

10. The impugned order of recovery is
set aside. However, it shall be open for the
respondent to give him revised pension as per
the correct pay fixation by issuing revised
Pension Payment Order.

11. The Writ Petition is allowed to this
extent. The already recovered amount shall be
refunded to the petitioner within a period of
two months from the date a copy of this order
is produced before them.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 69
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 9789 of 2022

The U.O.I. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Subachan
Ram
Pr.
Commissioner
of
Income Tax, Prayagraj & Anr.
 ...Respondents