The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P9 order issued by the University upholding the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,06,578/- from the petitioner which was ordered as per Exhibit P4 order dated 29.9.2009. Exhibit P5 liability certificate issued to the petitioner is also under challenge.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service as Deputy Director of Physical Education on 30.4.2008. His pension papers were cleared by the Local Fund Audit and Exhibit P3 order authorising payment of retirement benefits was issued on 7.9.2009. However, by Exhibit P4 order dated 29.9.2009 it was stated that the pay fixation with effect from 1.1.1996 was erroneous and the advance increment granted from June, 1990 on acquiring M.Phil degree and the stagnation increments granted with effect from March, 2006 were disallowed. It was further stated that as per UGC Norms, those who acquire M.Phil while in service can be given only the relaxation of one year for placement and not eligible for one advance increment. It was therefore directed that an amount of Rs.1,06,528/- be recovered from the petitioner's DCRG. Exhibit P5 liability certificate dated 24.11.2009 was also subsequently issued ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,640/- from the petitioner's DCRG.
WP(C).10786/13 2
3. The petitioner had submitted representations against such recovery. By Exhibit P8 judgment, this Court directed to dispose of the representation within six weeks. Exhibit P9 order dated 26.2.2013 has been rendered upholding the recovery of an excess amount of Rs.1,09,648/- and rejecting the petitioner's representation. The petitioner contends that whatever be the merits of the objections raised, the amounts paid on the strength of orders with authority could not have been recovered from him after his retirement in view of the clear findings and directions contained in the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2015)4 SCC 334].
Exhibit P9, to the extent it orders recovery of amounts from the petitioner is invalid and unsustainable in view of the specific findings contained in paragraphs 16 and 18 of the decision in Rafiq Masih's case (supra). Exhibit P9 to the extent it orders recovery of Rs.1,09,648/- is therefore set aside. The respondents are directed to release such amount, which were recovered from the petitioner's DCRG, to him forthwith, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs16/11