Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gajendra Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 31 August, 2016
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1796-1797/2009
GAJENDRA SINGH AND ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 31/08/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Rajappa,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K.Panda, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sunita Gautam, Adv.
Mr. N.K.Karhail, Adv.
Mr. M.K.Maroria, Adv.
Mr. Mohanty, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera)
AR-cum-PS Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SHASHI SAREEN
Date: 2016.09.17
12:34:29 IST
Reason:
2
3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEALS No.1796-1797 OF 2009
GAJENDRA SINGH AND ANR.
Appellant(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Respondent(s)
O R D E R
These appeals arise out of an Order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby Writ Petitions No. 1343 of 2006 and 1344 of 2006 filed by the appellants have been dismissed in the process upholding an Order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2341 of 2004 and 124 of 2005. The facts lie in a narrow compass and may be set out as under:
The appellants appear to have been appointed as Junior 4 Engineer B/R in Military Engineering service some time in the year 2000. The appointment order appears to have erroneously mentioned the pay scale admissible to them to be Rs.5500-9000 and then the pay fixed at Rs. 5500 p.m. The authorities in due course realised mistake and issued a corrigendum on 16.06.2001 correcting the admissible pay scale to Rs. 5000-8000.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants appear to have approached the CAT to challenge the corrigendum and the correction made thereunder. The CAT however dismissed the pension and upheld the corrigendum. That order was then challenged in Writ Petitions No. 1343 and 1344 of 2006 before the High Court of Delhi which petitions have been dismissed by a common order dated 31.01.2006 impugned in these appeals.
When these appeals came up for preliminary hearing on 08.05.2006 this Court issued notice to the respondents limited to the question whether the excess salary paid to the appellants should be recovered from them. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India on that limited question as no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent however fairly conceded that the error in mentioning the pay scale of the appellants was in no way attributable to the appellants herein. The error was committed by the authorities while issuing the appointment order which could and was indeed corrected by the authorities. The High Court was in that view perfectly justified in upholding the corrigendum issued by the 5 respondents and correcting the error in letters of appointment.
The question however is whether consequent upon that correction, the respondent would be justified in recovering the excess amount of Rs. 500 p.m. received by the appellants. Our answer to that question is in the negative. We say so because the error leading to the receipt of an additional amount of Rs. 500 p.m. was in no way attributable to the appellants. The appellants having received the excess amount under a bonafide belief that the same is due to them must have organised their affairs accordingly and spent the same in a manner they would not have had they known that the excess may at some stage be recovered from them. Recovery of the amount so paid and spent to the appellants could therefore be wholly inequitable. In any event, the amount received by the appellant is so insignificant and the period over which the same received so short that there is no reason why the respondent should insist on recovery the same. As a matter of fact there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents have raised any demand for recovery of the excess amount nor is there any real basis for the apprehension that they may do so.
In that view we dispose of these appeals with the observation that the excess amount, if any, received by the appellants on account of error in the description of the pay scale admissible to them in the original order of appointment, shall not be recovered. No costs.
6
................CJI.
(T.S.THAKUR) ..................J. (A.M.KHANWILKAR) ..................J. (Dr.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD) New Delhi, Dated: August 31st, 2016.