SHANKAR NARAYAN CHAKRAWARTY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order of recovery of Rs.1,50,113/- which was sought for and was recovered after the petitioner retired on 01.06.2019. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired after rendering the services as Headmaster, Government Primary School on 01.06.2019. It is contended that the petitioner was served with a notice after the retirement. Further to settle the pension of the petitioner for the first time after two months on 16.08.2019, the recovery notice was served by Annexure P-2. The petitioner contends that the said recovery was made by way of an arm twisting method as after retirement if the amount would not have paid, the further pensionary benefit would not have been given. Consequently, the petitioner was forced to make payment of Rs.1,50,113/- so that the pensionary benefit survives. It is contended that after the deposit was made, the action of the State respondents is under challenge as illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ratio laid down in case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, 2015 4 SCC 334, clearly postulates the recovery of amount after retirement would be barred. It is contended that the petitioner held the post of Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, a Class-III post; therefore, as per the law laid down, the recovery from the petitioner cannot be made.

(2.) Learned State counsel would submit that the recovery is on the background of the excess payment made as and when the salary was revised. The reference was made to the undertaking given by the petitioner and would submit that the undertaking takes within its sweep entirety the excess payment made, if any. Consequently, as per the law laid down in case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh, 2016 AIR(SC) 3523, the undertaking having been given, the State is within its right to recover. Reliance is also placed in case of State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Pramila Mandavi decided on 02.12.2019 in W.A. No.376 of 2019 and would submit that the ratio laid down in such case would also be applicable as the undertaking saves the conduct of the State.

(3.) Perused the documents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Class-III cadre as he was Headmaster in the Primary School. It is also not in dispute that after the petitioner retired, the recovery notice was served on him on the ground that excess payment was made while the pay fixation was made uptill 2013. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Supreme Court at para 18 has laid down the following guideline, which under those conditions makes the recovery impermissible. For the sake of relevance, para 18 is reproduced hereunder :