- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "(a) The impugned order dated 17.04.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the Assistant Account Officer (Pension), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited may kindly be quashed and set aside and; (b) Further the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,10,374/- to the petitioner together with the interest @ 12% per annum and; (c) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant the basic pay of Rs.970/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1987 with all consequential benefits and after making the correct re-fixation, the arrears of entire retiral benefits may also be granted to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be made in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labour (Class-IV) on muster roll basis on 25.06.1976 but was subsequently regularized. The petitioner is presently the employee of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (for short "RRVUNL"). The petitioner's fixation was made in the regular pay scale as per the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees' (Emoluments) Service Regulations, 1978 and he was allowed the regular pay scale of Rs. 240/- w.e.f. 01.04.1974. The respondents meanwhile, implemented Singh Sancheti Award and in compliance of that said award, the re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner was made in the pay scale of Rs.400-600. The benefit of selection grade was allowed to the petitioner in the next higher pay scale No.2 i.e. Rs.820-1520/- by the respondents. The petitioner was also allowed the selection grade vide order dated 01.04.1987 in the pay scale of 820-1520 on the same post of Class-IV. Further pay fixation was made in the pay band of Rs.5220-20200 w.e.f. 01.09.2006, the petitioner retired from service on 30.08.2013. The respondents after retirement, raised an objection seeking recovery for the excess fixation made to the petitioner in the year 1988.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.11527/2014 in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Etc Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc decided on 18.12.2014. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would given employees on the issue of recovery where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decision referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law; (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order or recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employees would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweight the equitable balance of the employer's right to recovery." ;