Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Tribunal by Ext.P8 order allowed the original application and set aside the order directing recovery of amounts paid to the respondent, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. Aggrieved by the order Ext.P8, the State and its Officers have filed this original petition.

5. Heard Sri B.Vinod, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P.Nandakumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334] was not legally valid and the original petition ought to have been dismissed on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Haryana and Punjab v Jagdev Singh reported in [AIR 2016 SC 3523] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334] will not apply in the cases of employees who have given an undertaking to the effect that excess amounts paid will be refunded. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the above submission cannot be countenanced in the light of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh supra [AIR 2016 SC 3523] did not hold that the earlier judgment in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334] was wrong and had only carved out a distinction in cases coming under the second criterion of employees noted in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. In Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

8. The effect of the judgment in Jagdev Singh supra [AIR 2016 SC 3523] on the judgment in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334] was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in State of Kerala and others v. Vinod Kumar C.R. reported in [2020 (4) KLT 230]. In paragraph 7 of the judgment the Division Bench held as follows:-

" .......... .......... ......... On a reading of both Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Jagdev Singh is a complete departure from the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih. From a reading of paragraphs 10 and 11 of Jagdev Singh, it appears to us that the Supreme Court had only clarified that in the case of recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, there would be no bar in ordering recovery, if the employee concerned had executed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess payment. We cannot read Jagdev Singh as having laid down the proposition that in every case where there is an undertaking as aforesaid, recovery can be ordered from the employee concerned whatever be the point of time that such payment was made. We cannot overlook the fact that there is not even a suggestion in Jagdev Singh that in the event of there being an undertaking to refund excess pay, none of the situations envisaged as items (i) to (v) of Rafiq Masih can be pressed into service.

9. It can thus be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the directions contained in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334] regarding clauses 1, 3, 4 and

5. In the case on hand, it can be seen from the facts narrated above that the mistake regarding the grant of Second and Third Time Bound Higher Grades occurred in 2001 and 2006 respectively. This was 14 and 9 years respectively prior to the retirement of the respondent. So also, the decision to cancel the Second and Third Time Bound Higher Grades granted to the respondent was finally taken only as per Annexure A8 order dated 25.01.2018, which was much after the retirement of the respondent. In the above circumstances, the dictum laid down in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334] squarely applies to the facts of this case. The order for recovery is issued after the retirement of the respondent. The respondent belongs to Group C Class 3 category of employees and the recovery is ordered five years after the occurrence of the mistake as stipulated in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. The judgment in Jagdev Singh supra [AIR 2016 SC 3523] has not in any way modified the above said conditions contained in the judgment in Rafiq Masih supra [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. We do not find any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the order Ext.P8 of the Tribunal. No grounds have been made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.