Reserved on 13.03.2018 Delivered on 30.03.2018
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13559 of 2016 Petitioner :- Surendra Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Triloki Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubhranshu Shekhar
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Triloki Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shubhranshu Shekhar, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the orders dated 03.12.2015, passed by Prabhagiya Lounging Prabandhak, Uttar Pradesh, Van Nigam, Allahabad, respondent no.4, whereby, he has held that his leave encashment amount of 131 days is being sanctioned with the condition that it shall be paid after adjustment of the dues against the petitioner. By the second order of date passed by the respondent no.4, it has been held that there is outstanding ledger dues of Rs.93,067.25 against him which he has not deposited after repeated informations and therefore orders are being issued for its adjustment from his final dues. Further direction against the respondents to pay entire retiral dues, benefits of the petitioner along with interest has also been sought.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Scaler on 01.12.1983 in U.P. Forest Corporation, Allahabad and was regularized in 2011. His retirement was due on 31.07.2015 and therefore on 01.05.2015, he requested from the respondent no.4 that prior to his retirement, he may be informed about any dues against him in his Ledger. A letter dated 16.07.2015, was sent by the respondent no.4 that certain dues which were shown against the petitioner have been adjusted against one Yogendra Kumar Mishra, another scaler. No dues were intimated and the petitioner retired on 31.07.2015. When his dues of E.P.F., leave encashment, gratuity pension, etc., were not paid, he represented and was informed by the letter dated 11.08.2015 that an amount of Rs.61,916/- due against him has been adjusted against one Kamla Shankar Tiwari. Nothing was shown due against the petitioner, no enquiry was ever initiated against the petitioner nor any recovery was made from him during the service. On 20.01.2016, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent no.4 stating that he was never intimated about the dues nor any details have been given about the basis of passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders were passed without any opportunity of hearing and any enquiry involving the petitioner, hence this writ petition.
The respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 filed their Short Counter Affidavit stating that the petitioner was provided huge advances in cash for different works which were duly received by the petitioner but he did not produced the voucher of entire expenses. A Ledger Debit of Rs. 1,89,644.90 was found against the petitioner. A Committee was constituted on 08.06.2015 which found that the dues against the petitioner are only Rs.93,067.25. The petitioner did not produced the vouchers against the Ledger Debit and on 12.04.2016, he was informed about the details of his Ledger Debit. The petitioner deserves to be directed to produce the vouchers.
A Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 stating that a Committee was constituted on 10.06.2015, which has provided detailed information regarding the debit in ledger against the petitioner. The earlier advance against the petitioner was shown as Rs.1,89,644.90, which has been reduced by the Committee and Net Ledger Debit against the petitioner is Rs.93,067/-.
In compliance of the order dated 16.05.2017, the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 have brought on record the computation chart along with vouchers showing the Net Ledger Debit against the petitioner. The photocopies of the pages of the Ledger Book and calculations made on their basis have been brought on record by the respondents.
The petitioner has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Short Counter Affidavit of the petitioner stating that despite his letter dated 01.05.2015, requesting the respondent no.4 to provide the Ledger Debit due against him, he was not informed about the dues and on the own admission of the respondents earlier they calculated the dues against the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,89,644.90 which was later modified by them unilaterally to Rs.93,067.25, without disclosing the basis of determination of both the amounts. There are no dues against him and there is no justification for recovery from his post retiral dues after retirement from service.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, it is clear that the intention of the petitioner was clear and prior to his retirement he requested the respondent no.4, by his application dated 01.05.2015, that he may be informed about his Ledger Dues, if any, since he is retiring from service on 31.07.2015. The respondent no.4 did nothing on his application and when his post retiral dues was not paid he made representations to the respondent no.4, the impugned orders dated 03.12.2015, were passed by the respondent no.4. No opportunity of objection to the demanded amount of Rs.93,067.25 was afforded to the petitioner, prior to the passing of the impugned order. Earlier this amount was calculated as Rs.1,89,644.90, which was later reduced by the respondents without giving any details regarding the mistake on their own part.
This Court repeatedly required from the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4, the relevant Service Rules, which provide for procedure of determination of such liability and manner of recovery of such dues, but it was stated that no such Rule exists. Regarding the Rule, which permits recovery of Ledger Dues from the employees after their retirement, by way of adjustment in their post retiral dues, without any notice and opportunity of hearing, reply was made that these are not dues but Ledger Debit entries against the advances made to the petitioner for certain work regarding which he did not submitted corresponding vouchers and there is no rule for this purpose. In the absence of any Rule, recovery from retired employee, petitioner, can not be justified without even complying with the principles of natural justice by the respondent no.4.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Apex Court has disapproved any recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees of any excess amount paid to them in excess of their entitlement, after their retirement from service. This Judgment covers the case of the petitioner, who is sated to be a retired Class-IV employee and if after his superannuation from service recovery is made from his post retirement dues, he and his dependents shall suffer great hardship. The respondents had opportunity to recover the same, while the petitioner was in service, in accordance with the relevant service rules, but after his retirement, without relying upon any rule permitting recovery of such dues, the respondents can not be permitted to proceed against the petitioner.
In view of the above the impugned orders dated 03.12.2015, passed by Prabhagiya Lounging Prabandhak, Uttar Pradesh, Van Nigam, Allahabad, respondent no.4, whereby, he has held that the leave encashment amount of 131 days is being sanctioned to the petitioner, with the condition that it shall be paid after adjustment of the dues against him and the second order of date passed by the respondent no.4, whereby it has been held that there is outstanding ledger amount of Rs.93,067.25 against him which he has not deposited after repeated information and therefore orders are being issued for its adjustment from his final dues, are hereby quashed. Further direction is issued against the respondent nos.3 and 4 to pay entire post retiral dues of the petitioner along with 7% simple interest from the date of the retirement of the petitioner on 31.07.2015 within 6 weeks from the date of this order. Since the respondent no.4 is represented through Counsel the intimation of this order is deemed on him and the time for compliance of this order will start from today.
The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.03.2018 Ruchi Agrahari