Madras High Court
V.B.Vasu … vs The Secretary To Government on 11 March, 2022
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
and
W.M.P. Nos. 13771 and 13772 of 2017
V.B.Vasu … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police II),
Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director,
Vigilance & Anti-corruption Department,
Chennai-600 016. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Second
Respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Rc. No.
F1/37475/16 dated 24.04.2017 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Venkatramani, Senior Counsel
for Mr. M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mrs. C.Sangamithirai
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
ORDER
Heard Mr. K.Venkatramani, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mrs. C.Sangamithirai, Learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record,
apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the Order in Rc. No. F1/37475/16 dated
24.04.2017 passed by the Second Respondent for recovery of excess payment
of Rs. 1,56,758/- in this Writ Petition. It requires to be noticed here that in
furtherance to the order dated 12.01.2017 in W.P. No. 996 of 2017 filed by the
Petitioner earlier before this Court, show cause notice dated 03.03.2017 had
been issued to him and after considering the reply dated 30.03.2017 submitted
by him in that regard, the impugned order has been passed. Further, in order to
alleviate the hardship that may be caused to the Petitioner by effecting a
lumpsum recovery, it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the said
sum of Rs. 1,56,758/- would be recovered for a fraction of Rs. 1,758/- from his
salary for May 2017 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,74,000/- would be
recovered @ Rs. 2,175/- per month in 80 equal monthly installments from June
2017 onwards.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner ventilates the grievance that
when excess payment had been made by applying a wrong principle by the
employer without any misrepresentation by the concerned employee, recovery
cannot be effected, as in this case. It is not possible to accept the said
contention in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Chandi Prasad Uniyal –vs- State of Uttarakhand [(2012) 8 SCC 417], where it
has been held as follows:-
“13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments
referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that
only if the State or its officials establish that there was
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the
excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the
other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on
the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because
the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or
were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy.
14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money
which is often described as “taxpayers' money” which belongs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the
recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or
misrepresentation is being brought in 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 the 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.”
The said view has been reiterated by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab –vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
[(2014) 8 SCC 883]. In such circumstances, there does not appear to be
infirmity in the impugned order in the exercise of the discretionary powers of
judicial review of the decision-making process under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is made clear that if the Petitioner is found to be entitled to the
benefit of exemption from recovery, the amounts deducted shall be returned to
him within a period of 30 days therefrom.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
11.03.2022
gd
Index: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy by 15.06.2022.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police II),
Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director,
Vigilance & Anti-corruption Department,
Chennai-600 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
gd
W.P. No. 12906 of 2017
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
