Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the Judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 02.03.2009 and also of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 05.01.2006, and the order dated 26.06.2000 passed by the Public Redressal Complaint Cell of the Chief Minister of Kerala.
Brief Facts:
In the year 1966, the appellant joined services as a High School Assistant/Teacher which is an aided school. During his tenure, he availed leave without allowance, for pursuing postgraduation. Thereafter the appellant was promoted as Headmaster of the school and he was granted senior grade promotion and his pay scale was revised accordingly. A notice accompanied with an audit report of the respondent no.5 Account General of Kerala was served on the appellant by the respondent no.4 District Educational Officer, Kollam with an objection that the period of leave obtained by the appellant for undergoing higher education should not be included while determining his total qualifying service. Therefore, the pay and subsequent increments granted to the appellant should be recovered from him. Meanwhile, the appellant had retired from service and since then he was neither paid pensionary benefits nor death cum retirement gratuity. The appellant challenged the proposal to initiate recovery proceedings against him by way of filing a complaint before the Public Redressal Complaint Cell, Chief Minister of Kerala, for recovering the increments granted to the appellant during the year 1989 and 1991. The State of Kerala rejected the said complaint. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned order dated 02.03.2009 dismissed the appeal.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the excess payment made to the appellant was not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting the Kerala Service Rules. It was submitted that the appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. The appellant had to undergo a bypass surgery and he is in huge debts. After repeated request, D.C.R.G. benefit was released in his favour.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of the High Court.
SC’s Observations:
The question before the Court was whether increments granted to the appellant, while he was in service, can be recovered from him almost 10 years after his retirement on the ground that the said increments were granted on account of an error?
SC stated that the Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.
SC further stated that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. We are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.”
Case Title: Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Bench: J. S. Abdul Nazeer and J. Vikram Nath
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7115 OF 2010
Decided on: 2nd May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :