ups_01056 — Type of recoveries which are impermissible as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others, etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. [ 2015 AIR SCW 501 ] is to be followed strictly in recoveries from the gratuity of a retired employee. In this case, withholding of gratuity amount for the purpose of recovery of the alleged excess payment to the Applicant comes within the type of recoveries which are enumerated by Apex Court as impermissible in law and hence that no recov

UPS

Type of recoveries which are impermissible as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others, etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. [ 2015 AIR SCW 501 ] is to be followed strictly in recoveries from the gratuity of a retired employee. In this case, withholding of gratuity amount for the purpose of recovery of the alleged excess payment to the Applicant comes within the type of recoveries which are enumerated by Apex Court as impermissible in law and hence that no recovery is permissible from gratuity of the Applicant — The case involved a retired employee (Applicant) who was withholding his gratuity amount due to alleged excess payment and argued that recovery of such an amount is impermissible as per Apex Court's ... — Facts: The Applicant herein, while working as a Head Signaller drawing a pay of ₹ 6,200 in the pay scale of ₹ 5,000-8,000 was redeployed as Ticket Collector in the pay scale of ₹ 3,050-4,590 plus personal pay of ₹ 1,610 as the pay scale of Head Signaller is much higher than Ticket Collector. The Applicant accepted the posting as Ticket Collector as the Respondents promised to place him in the grade of ₹ 5,000-8,000 within six months. The pay of the Applicant was fixed as ₹ 4,590 in the post of Ticket Collector with a personal pay of ₹ 1,610. The Applicant's total salary was restricted to ₹ 6,200 from 2000-2005. As his pay protection is not done, he filed a W.P. in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which is pending. The Applicant voluntarily retired from service on 30-9-2012 while he was holding the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector in the Pay Band of ₹ 9,300-34,800 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200. When his pensionary benefits were released on April, 2013, he found that ' 91,310 was withheld from his retirement benefits. He was informed that the personal pay given to him from 2000 to 2005 was withdrawn. According to him, no notice was given to him before the said recovery. Hence he filed this OA against withholding of ₹ 91,310 as arbitrary and refund the said amount with 12% interest per annum. The Respondents state that surplus staff pay absorbed in lower post will be fixed in the similar scale and if such scale is not available, they will be fixed in a lower stage treating the difference in pay as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments. The pay so fixed should not exceed the maximum of the scale of the post in which the surplus staff is being absorbed. A table showing the pay fixation of the Applicant is reproduced in the judgment. The pay of the Applicant on introduction of 6th CPC with effect from 1-1-2006 is also produced in the judgment. The Applicant in his rejoinder states that there is no record to show that he was a surplus staff and that he is treated worse than a person with disability for whom the Section 47 of PWD Act is applied. In the argument stage, the Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others, etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. (supra) was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, wherein the Apex Court delineated certain categories of recovery from the employees as not permissible where the payments have been made by the employer mistakenly, in excess of their entitlement. While holding the recovery is impermissible in law in certain categories of Government employees who received payments in excess of their entitlement Para. 12 of the said judgment is reproduced for clarity. The Applicant submits that he being an employee of Group 'C', falls, squarely within the exempted category as per law laid down by Apex Court. He further submits that the recovery of overpayment from payable gratuity is impermissible,

UPS

Type of recoveries which are impermissible as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others, etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. [ 2015 AIR SCW 501 ] is to be followed strictly in recoveries from the gratuity of a retired employee. In this case, withholding of gratuity amount for the purpose of recovery of the alleged excess payment to the Applicant comes within the type of recoveries which are enumerated by Apex Court as impermissible in law and hence that no recovery is permissible from gratuity of the Applicant — The case involved a retired employee (Applicant) who was withholding his gratuity amount due to alleged excess payment and argued that recovery of such an amount is impermissible as per Apex Court's ... — Facts: The Applicant herein, while working as a Head Signaller drawing a pay of ₹ 6,200 in the pay scale of ₹ 5,000-8,000 was redeployed as Ticket Collector in the pay scale of ₹ 3,050-4,590 plus personal pay of ₹ 1,610 as the pay scale of Head Signaller is much higher than Ticket Collector. The Applicant accepted the posting as Ticket Collector as the Respondents promised to place him in the grade of ₹ 5,000-8,000 within six months. The pay of the Applicant was fixed as ₹ 4,590 in the post of Ticket Collector with a personal pay of ₹ 1,610. The Applicant's total salary was restricted to ₹ 6,200 from 2000-2005. As his pay protection is not done, he filed a W.P. in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which is pending. The Applicant voluntarily retired from service on 30-9-2012 while he was holding the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector in the Pay Band of ₹ 9,300-34,800 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200. When his pensionary benefits were released on April, 2013, he found that ' 91,310 was withheld from his retirement benefits. He was informed that the personal pay given to him from 2000 to 2005 was withdrawn. According to him, no notice was given to him before the said recovery. Hence he filed this OA against withholding of ₹ 91,310 as arbitrary and refund the said amount with 12% interest per annum. The Respondents state that surplus staff pay absorbed in lower post will be fixed in the similar scale and if such scale is not available, they will be fixed in a lower stage treating the difference in pay as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments. The pay so fixed should not exceed the maximum of the scale of the post in which the surplus staff is being absorbed. A table showing the pay fixation of the Applicant is reproduced in the judgment. The pay of the Applicant on introduction of 6th CPC with effect from 1-1-2006 is also produced in the judgment. The Applicant in his rejoinder states that there is no record to show that he was a surplus staff and that he is treated worse than a person with disability for whom the Section 47 of PWD Act is applied. In the argument stage, the Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others, etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. (supra) was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, wherein the Apex Court delineated certain categories of recovery from the employees as not permissible where the payments have been made by the employer mistakenly, in excess of their entitlement. While holding the recovery is impermissible in law in certain categories of Government employees who received payments in excess of their entitlement Para. 12 of the said judgment is reproduced for clarity. The Applicant submits that he being an employee of Group 'C', falls, squarely within the exempted category as per law laid down by Apex Court. He further submits that the recovery of overpayment from payable gratuity is impermissible,

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text