Kerala High Court
A.L. Venugopal vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 6 June, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28044 OF 2012
PETITIONER/S:
A.L. VENUGOPAL
H.NO.41/2419, ALUNGAL HOUSE, KARANAKODAM,
THAMMANAM.P.O, KOCHI-682 032.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN; SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-18.
BY ADV SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
SRI. M.K.THANKAPPAN-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.28044/2012
-2-
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
who demitted office as Accounts Officer in Kerala State
Electricity Board (KSEB) on 30.04.1998 on attaining the age of
superannuation. The petitioner was paid the gratuity amount
of Rs.80,000/- at the time of retirement.
2. The petitioner approached the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (for short,
'the Gratuity Act') for a higher amount of gratuity under the
Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority vide order dated
15.02.2005 held that the petitioner was entitled to a gratuity of
Rs.2,80,037/-. As the petitioner was already paid Rs.80,000/-,
a further amount of Rs.2,00,037/-, being the balance amount
of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% was directed
to be paid to the petitioner, i.e., with effect from 01.06.1998 to
04.12.1998 for Rs.2,80,037/-, and for Rs.2,00,037/- from
05.12.1998 till the actual date of payment. The Board
challenged this decision of the Controlling Authority dated
15.02.2005 in the appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed
the appeal on 27.06.2007.
2.1 As the principal amount of gratuity was not paid to
the petitioner as per the order of the Controlling Authority,
the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.29175/2007 before this Court.
During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was
paid the balance principal amount of Rs.2,00,037/- on
19.11.2007. Thereafter, as per the direction of this Court in the
judgment dated 18.06.2008 in W.P.(C) No.15499/2008, the
Kerala State Electricity Board paid interest of Rs.1,45,110/-.
2.2 Now, the petitioner has been issued the impugned
notice (Ext.P3) directing the petitioner to remit Rs.45,971/-,
the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. This
impugned notice is dated 07.11.2012.
3. This Court finds it strange that after having been
paid everything way back in 2005 and 2007 and the interest in
the year 2007-08, the impugned notice has been issued. This
Court finds no justification for issuing the impugned notice.
Further, the case is covered by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih1, wherein in
paragraph 18 it has been held:
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship
which would govern 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, 9
based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a
ready reference, summarise the following few situations,
wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible
in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and
Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of
recovery.
(2015) 4 SCC 334
(iii) Recovery from the 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 employee, would
be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent as would
far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to
recover."
The impugned notice (Ext.P3) is hereby quashed. In view
thereof, the present writ petition is allowed, however, without
costs.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
jjj
APPENDIX
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2005 PASSED BY THE
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
EXT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2007 IN APPEAL FILED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
EXT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2012 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE B O DATED 05.06.2012
