In a case where the order for recovery of an extra amount was challenged, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh referred to the judgment in S. S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. and others, where a list of situations are mentioned where recovery of payments made mistakenly by the employer is not permissible and further noted that if an error was made by the employer they should have corrected then only, they cannot ask for recovery of the amount after 25 years of the error.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has questioned the decision of the respondent, whereby an amount of Rs.1,31,152/-, was ordered to be recovered from him on account of alleged overpayment and actually the payment of this amount, which was a part of the General Provident Fund (GPF) was withheld on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to it.
The petitioner was a Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT) in the respondent education department and he was then promoted to the position of the head teacher and then to the position of the central head teacher. According to the petitioner an amount of Rs.6,71,835/- was due to be paid to him as GPF on the date of retirement, respondent had made a payment of Rs.5,40,682/- in January 2010 and it has been submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,31,152/- was illegally deducted from the due and admissible GPF payable to the petitioner. And it has also been contended that the respondent has not paid the interest payable on the delayed payment of the GPF amount.
The respondent has submitted that the amount of Rs.1,31,152/- was withheld from the payable GPD amount of the petitioner on account of an objection raised by the office of accountant general that is respondent no.3. it was submitted by respondent no. 3 that excess amount has been paid to the petitioner as a part of GPF in the past.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that the respondent’s stance come within the law settled in the case of S. S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby situations have been mentioned where even when payments have been mistakenly made by the employer the recovery is impermissible. Accordingly, the court noted that the petitioner has retired from a Class III post and the GPF amount was being deducted by the respondents, the error that crept in maintaining the GPF amount lay squarely on the respondents and the respondents should have rectified the error on time. It was further noted that the respondents chose to correct their mistake after 25 years and the recourse undertaken by the respondents was found to be impermissible in law and the court found the prayer of the petitioner to be justified.
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was partly allowed as some amount was already paid to the petitioner and the respondents were directed to release the withheld GPF amount with interest.
Case Title: Jawahar Lal (deceased) through LRs v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Coram: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Case No.: CWPOA No.368 of 2019
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Dulta, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents:
Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta & Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocates General, and Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Sumit Sharma, and Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocates General., for
respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
