KHALIDA NESAT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner before this Court is assailing the validity of order dated 4.5.2018 passed by respondent no.3, Chief Medical Officer, District Mau and for direction to the respondents to pay the withheld gratuity amount of Rs.1,60,813/- with compound interest.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was working as Head Assistant in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Mau. He retired on 31.1.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. He completed all the formalities and submitted the paper for payment of his entire retiral dues in February, 2017. Unfortunately, he died on 25.4.2017. The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order, which directed for withholding of gratuity amount of Rs.1,60,813/- on account of excess payment of salary of her husband from January, 2006 to January, 2017. There is no fault or misrepresentation on the part of husband of the petitioner. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 AIR (SC) page 696, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that recovery from the employee belonging to Class III and Class IV service or Group 'C' and 'D' service would be impermissible even in case it is found that they were beneficiaries of receiving higher emoluments, than were due to them.