Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 26th July 2022 at 19:22 IST
The Kerala High Court ruled that even if a statute does not mandate it, the parties should be given a chance to be heard before a recovery procedure because it may have legal and financial repercussions.
Thus, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation’s (KSRTC) claim that the employees do not need to be heard before the corporation determines that excess payments are paid should be rejected by a division bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and C.S. Dias.
The Court states, “We cannot accept the said argument. Since a recovery/withholding of the amount due to a person visit him with civil and pecuniary consequences, even in the absence of a statutory provision, requiring a hearing, principles of natural justice demands a hearing to be offered before such decisions are taken.”
The remuneration of the employees was updated with effect from March 2011 and options were offered, in accordance with a bilateral agreement between KSRTC management and its employees. The respondents in this case, who are currently retired KSRTC personnel, exercised their option as soon as possible to the officer in question.
This choice was chosen, and payments were being made in accordance with it. However, following their retirement, the surplus money was taken from their pensionary benefits and death-related retirement benefits (DCRG), with the justification that the unit officials had not signed the respondents’ chosen alternative. These payments were considered excess on this basis.
K.P. Rajeevan, an attorney, defended the respondents and opposed the appeal.
The employer/government is normally permitted to collect the excess amount, if any, drawn by the employee, and the power of the government is unassailable, the court observed.
The Bench further remarked that it was obvious from Rule 3(b)(ii) of that any proceedings that were launched also had to be in relation to any occurrence that occurred more than four years prior to the initiation of the proceedings.
The appeal was dismissed with a clarification that the single Judge rightly directed the amount that should be paid by KSTRC within 4 weeks.