PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Monday examined writ petitions by two retired Goa Police Sub Inspectors (PSI) to proposed recovery proceedings, during which the Bench observed that such action amounts to “harassment” of a pensioner.
The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, while hearing the first petition filed by Shivaji Narayan Birje, a retired PSI, noted that he had already superannuated from service on December 31, 2024, and was now being subjected to recovery proceedings.
The petitioner contended that the primary grievance was the proposed recovery of 'excess drawings', cancellation of pay fixation with retrospective effect, among others, for no fault of his own. He submitted that the excess payment, if any, arose solely due to mistakes committed by the department, without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part.
Placing reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih, the petitioner argued that recovery from employees is impermissible where over-payment has resulted from an employer’s mistake and not from any misrepresentation by the employee.
The SC, he pointed out, had clearly held that such recoveries from retired government servants are barred, an exercise characterised under Article 142, and therefore not a conflicting precedent.
The HC Bench observed that the law is now well settled that recovery of excess payments from retired government servants is not permissible. The Bench went on to remark that subjecting a retired employee to such proceedings amounts to harassment.
At the same time, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner for interim relief and also permitted the petitioner to amend the writ petition.
A similar issue in another writ petition filed by Ramchandra Pundalik Sawant, also a retired PSI, was taken up for a brief hearing. In that matter, too, the Bench granted leave to amend the petition.
The Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, including the Goa Police, sought time to file a reply, to which the Bench granted four weeks.
