Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6718 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner retired from the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Class-III) on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 December 2017. By the instant writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 21 February 2019, passed by the second respondent-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Varanasi, directing the third respondent-Additional Director Pension Evam Treasury, Varanasi Region, Varanasi to recover the excess amount at Rs.2,31,628/- from the petitioner paid towards gratuity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The fault was of the authorities in wrongly computing the gratuity. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih [2014 (8) SCC883].
Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the Government Order/Circular dated 21 November 2016 issued to the department, whereby, it has been categorically provided that an undertaking is to be taken from the employee, in the event of wrong computation/excess payment, the same can be recovered from the pension/gratuity payable to the employee. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016)14 Supreme Court Cases 267, wherein, it has been held that once the petitioner has undertaken and agreed to deductions being made, if it be found excess payment has been made on wrong computation it is not open to the petitioner to assail the re-fixation of pension/gratuity.
It is not the case of the petitioner that petitioner had not given such an undertaking, in any case, the authorities were prompt in taking the decision and have passed the order to recover the excess amount within a year after retirement.
In view thereof, this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declines to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Atul