LEELA SHRIVASTAWA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Standing Counsel 23.

(2.) The petitioner, who took voluntary retirement with effect from 05-08-2014, has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash a letter no. 1144 dated 26-11-2014 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patna Division, Patna (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), whereby it was directed to recover an amount of Rs. 84,273/- (eighty four thousand two hundred & seventy three) from gratuity amount of the petitioner.

(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement and finally, she superannuated with effect from 05-08-2014. Subsequently, without any notice to the petitioner, by the impugned order i.e. Annexure 1 to the writ petition, direction was given to recover the amount i.e. Rs. 84,273/- from the gratuity amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, pursuant to Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the said amount has already been deducted from the gratuity amount. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the Government official was completely illegal and that too contrary to the settled principle of natural justice. He further submits that after retirement of an employee, if there was no case of getting any advantage by misrepresentation or suppression of fact, then in that event, no recovery is permissible. He has placed heavy reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court {State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer), 2015 1 PLJR 261 (SC)}, which categorically states that in case of retirement of Class III or Class IV employee, no recovery can be effected. He has specifically referred to paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which is quoted here-in-below:-