Delhi High Court
Jai Singh Rawat vs Hod/Provost Department Of Social ... on 5 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1533/2012
% 5th August, 2012
JAI SINGH RAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi and Mohd. Aqil,
Advocates.
versus
HOD/PROVOST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK (H) AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J. S.Rupal, Advocate
for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition claims release of pension
amount from March, 1999 to August, 1999.
2. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter-affidavit alongwith
the calculations as Annexure R-4 which shows that petitioner was paid an
excess amount of pension of Rs. 15,632/-, and which was thereafter
recovered way bank in the year 1999, and to which, petitioner never raised
an objection for about four years.
3. In the rejoinder-affidavit which is filed on behalf of the petitioner
calculations are not disputed because petitioner has not filed his own
calculations, and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner received an excess
amount of Rs.15,632/-.
4. No one can be allowed to retain excess amount which is received and
the recent judgment in this regard is the judgment in the case of Chandi
Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2012(8) SCC 417.
Para 14 of the said judgment is relevant and which emphasized the aspect of
money being tax payer's money, and the same reads as under:-
"14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often
described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have
effected over-payment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of
fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to
be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona
fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the
Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence,
carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does
not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the
payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are
being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments
have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any
amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring
few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such
situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise
it would amount to unjust enrichment." (emphasis added)
5. The writ petition is also in my opinion barred by delay and laches
because an act of 1999 cannot be challenged after four years by filing of a
representation, and the writ petition itself is filed in the year 2012.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is
therefore dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AUGUST 05, 2013
ib
