MURTAZA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and perused the record. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.4.2012 passed by respondent No. 3 insofar as it relates to the recovery from the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the age of superannuation he has worked under the instructions of superior officer and was paid salary accordingly. It was not on account of any fault on his part therefore, he cannot be penalised by directing to pay back salary which he has received by discharging duties for the said period. He further contended that once certain payments have been made not attributable to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of employee concerned, after long time, no recovery can be made and placed reliance on this Court's decision in B.N. Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 1979 AllLJ 1184; Shyam Babu Verma and another v. Union of India and others, 1994 2 SCC 521; Gabriel Saver Fernandes and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 1995 Supp1 SCC 149; Mahmood Hasan v. State of U.P., 1997 1 JT 353; State of Karnataka and another v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association and others, 2002 3 SCC 302; Surya Deo Mishra v. State of U.P., 2006 1 UPLBEC 399 and Purushottam Lal Das and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2006 10 Scale 89.

(3.) Lastly it is contended that once petitioner has actually discharged his duties, paid salary, if recovery is allowed, it would amount to compelling a person to work without remuneration and would be violative of Article 23 of the Constitution. Therefore recovery of salary paid for the period petitioner has actually discharged his duties is illegal.