Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: May, 4, 2022 at 20:13 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court overturned a Judgment of the High Court, where-in the Division Bench affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, that stated the mistake committed by the department concerned while granting the service benefits can be rectified subsequently by way of proposed recovery to be effected from appellant’s D.C.R.G. amount; dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that an attempt to recover increments after the passage of a long time of an employee’s retirement is unjustified.
The Contentions made by the appellant were:
1. That the excess payment made to the appellant was not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part.
2. That the excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting the Kerala Service Rules.
3. That the appellant had to undergo bypass surgery and he is in huge debt. After repeated requests, D.C.R.G. benefit was released in his favour and shall not be cancelled.
The Contentions made by the defendant were:
- That the view taken by the High Court is correct and there is no need for a review of the decision made.
The Apex Court after going through all the facts and statements of both sides stated that the Apex Court has in many previously adjudicated cases has held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or based on a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances is not recoverable.
That alternatively, if it is established that an employee knew or should have known that a payment received was more than what was due or wrongly paid, or, if the error is discovered or corrected within a short period of receiving the payment, the courts may order recovery based on the specific facts and circumstances.
“This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.”, the court said.
The Apex Court stated that in the present case, it is not claimed that the excess amounts have been paid in consequence of the misrepresentations or fraud committed by the appellant.
That furthermore, it is alleged that excessive payments were made as a result of a mistake made in interpreting Kerala Service Rules, which the Accountant General then pointed out.
That considering the above, we believe it is unjustified to attempt to recover said increments after 10 years have passed since his retirement.
“Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.”, The Court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned the judgment of the High Court, by stating that the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
The Judgment and order of the Division Bench also of the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Public Redressal Complaint Cell of the Chief Minister of Kerala and the recovery Notice is hereby set aside.