Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Per contra the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that in the light of the dictum in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, 2016 KHC 6515, the single judge was justified in reserving the liberty to the respondents to recover the amount.

8. Therefore, the only point to be determined is - whether there is a complete or absolute bar in recovering the excess amount disbursed to a class-IV employee over and above his entitlement, even in cases he has given an undertaking agreeing to return/refund any excess payments made to him, in the light of the dictum in White Washer (Supra). Before we answer the point, we briefly refer to the decisions submitted by either side in support of their respective stand.

15. The next decision referred to is a Division Bench decision of this court, that is, State of Kerala v. Vinod Kumar, 2020(4) KLT 230. In the said case, an argument was advanced on behalf of the State that the Apex court in Jagdev Singh (Supra) had made a complete departure from the principles laid down in White washer (Supra). This argument was repelled and it was held that a reading of paragraphs 10 and 11 of Jagdev Singh (Supra) makes it clear that, the Supreme Court had only clarified that, in cases of recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, there would be no bar in ordering recovery if the employee concerned had executed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess payment. Hence this Court held that, Jagdev Singh (Supra) cannot be read as having laid down the proposition that in every case where there is an undertaking, recovery can be ordered from the employee concerned whatever be the point of time that such payment was made, for there is not even a suggestion that in the event of there being an undertaking to refund excess pay, none of the situations envisaged as items (i) to (v) of White Washer (Supra) can be pressed into service. Holding so recovery of the excess amounts given within a period of 5 years alone was allowed and recovery of payments made before 5 years was declined.

16. In yet another Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Abraham P. Joseph, 2021 (2) KHC 259 also the argument on behalf of the State that the Supreme court in Jagdev Singh (Supra) has given a go by to the principles laid down in White Washer (Supra) has been repelled. Instead, the argument of the respondent that the court in Jagdev Singh (Supra) has not held that the earlier judgment in White Washer (Supra) is wrong and that it had only carved out a distinction in cases coming under the second criterion of employees noted in paragraph 18 of the judgment in White Washer (Supra), has been accepted. In Abraham P. Joseph (Supra) the mistake in the grant of second and third- time bound higher grades, had occurred 14 and 9 years respectively prior to the retirement of the respondent. The decision to cancel the time bound higher grades granted to the respondent, a Group C Class 3 category employee, had been taken and the order for recovery had been issued much after his retirement. In the said circumstances, the dictum in White Washer (Supra) was held to squarely apply to the facts of the case and so recovery was declined.

17. Finally, to the decision in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 KHC 6489 (SC). Relying on the decisions in Sahib Ram; Col. B. J. Akkara; Syed Abdul Qadir and White Washer, the Apex court held that, the attempt to recover the increments paid in excess by a mistake after passage of ten years of the retirement of the employee as unjustified.

18. It is true that this Court in Vinod Kumar (Supra) rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the State that, Jagdev Singh (Supra) is a complete departure from the principles laid down in White Washer (Supra). This Court held that in Jagdev Singh (Supra) the apex Court has only clarified that in cases of recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire with in a year of the order of recovery, there would be no bar on ordering recovery, if the employee concerned had executed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess payment(s). Hence it has been concluded that one cannot read Jagdev Singh (Supra) as having laid down the proposition that in every case where there is an undertaking given by the employee agreeing to refund the amount, recovery can be ordered from the employee concerned whatever be the point of time that such payment had been made. It was also noticed that it cannot be overlooked that, there is not even a suggestion in Jagdev Singh (Supra) that in the event of there being an undertaking to refund excess pay, none of the situations envisaged under items (i) to (v) of White Washer (Supra) can be pressed into service. Therefore, what has been concluded based on Jagdev Singh (Supra) is that, even in case of employees falling under categories (i) and (ii) of White Washer case (Supra), there would be no bar in initiating recovery against them if the employee concerned had executed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess payment.