Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 64951 (ALL)

SHYAM SHANKAR SAROJ v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/7863/2025 · 2025-07-15

Ajit Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115385 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7863 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shyam Shankar Saroj Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirbhay Singh,Tanuj Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- Chandan Sharma,Ashish Mishra,C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Tanuj Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. In response to the order passed by this Court dated 29th May, 2025, Chandan Sharma, has obtained instructions in the matter and placed the same before this Court, which are taken on record and as per instructions, the controversy involved in the present petition is admitted to be identical to the one involved in Writ A No. 9576 of 2024, Rakesh Pratap Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and 2 Others, stood disposed of on 18th July,2024 with following order: "The petitioner is a retired Clerk of the Judgeship of Allahabad. He was earlier employed with the Pratapgarh Judgeship where he was appointed in service on 16.07.1990. He was transferred to Allahabad Judgeship on 11.12.1998. The petitioner was confirmed in service on 03.11.1995 by an order of the District Judge. The petitioner has retired from service on 14.10.2023, and, by the impugned order dated 17.01.2024, a sum of Rs. 7,09,530/- is proposed to be recovered from him on account of a wrong fixation of his pay which led to excess payment towards his emoluments. The case of the petitioner is that he was not in any manner responsible for the fixation of his pay at any stage and even if for a fact his emoluments were wrongly fixed, the blame is on the establishment. He is a retired employee who held a Grade 'C' Post against whom no recovery from his post retiral benefits can be ordered, in the circumstances. On 08.07.2024, the learned Special Counsel for the High Court was directed to seek instructions. Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned Special Counsel for the High Court appears today and states that the petitioner was incorrectly awarded the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- with effect from 18.03.2011 instead of Rs. 2400/-. This led to excess payment which is now sought to be recovered. For one this reason is not at all indicated in the impugned order. Mr. Agarwal does not propose to file a counter affidavit. Even if he did, the reasons which are totally absent in the impugned order could not be supplemented by means of an affidavit. Quite apart this, in a matter of excess payment of salary that is due to wrong fixation, it is a well settled proposition of the law that from Grade 'C' employees and retired employees no recovery can be ordered, where they are themselves not instrumental in the wrong fixation. This principle is well acknowledged in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. Our attention has also been invited to a recent decision of ours in Praeep Kumar vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, Neutral Citation No. - 2023: AHC:139288, which too has followed Rafiq Masih (supra) and taken the same view. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that recovery from the petitioner's gratuity in terms of the impugned order cannot be made. The impugned order is unsustainable. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.01.2024 is hereby quashed. All gratuity due to the petitioner shall be paid within six weeks together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the gratuity fell due. There shall be no order as to costs. " Sri Chandan Sharma submits that this petition can also be disposed of in terms of the order in same manner. In view of aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of in terms of order passed in Writ A No. 9576 of 2024 (supra). and the order impugned dated 17.4.2025 is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad