Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"4.   Rightly   or   wrongly,   the   petitioner   Sridhar   Pandey   was   permitted to work and draw his salary. The period of which he   worked he will be entitled to the emoluments. If he was given   work as a result of any collusion between the officials it is upto   the   State   Government   to   take   action   against   the   officer   concerned,   who   permitted   this   extension   of   service   beyond   retirement.  On record, there is nothing against the petitioner   that he may have committed any misrepresentation or fraud   so as to extract from the period of retirement. 
(a)  The   excess   payment   was   not   made   on  account of any  misrepresentation or fraud on the  part of the employee.
8.
(b)      Such   excess   payment   was   made   by   the  employer   by   applying   a   wrong   principle   for  calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a  particular   interpretation   of   rule/order,   which   is  subsequently found to be erroneous.

29.  On   the   same   principle,   pensioners   can   also   seek   a   direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as   pensioners   are   in   a   more   disadvantageous   position   when   compared   to   in­service   employees.   Any   attempt   to   recover   excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them.  The petitioners are not guilty of any   misrepresentation   or   fraud in   regard to the   excess payment. NPA was added to   minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong   understanding   by   the   implementing   departments.   We   are   therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover   any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of   the circular dated 7­6­1999 till the issue of the clarificatory   circular   dated   11­9­2001.   Insofar   as   any   excess   payment   made   after   the   circular   dated   11­9­2001,   obviously   the   Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the   validity   of   the   said   circular   has   been   upheld   and   as   pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong   calculations earlier made. 

                                                                            (Emphasis supplied)

(xii) It has been held by this Court in the case of  Laxman Prasad  Gupta v. The State of Jharkhand & ors., as reported in  2008(3)   JCR 655 (FB), at paragraph no. 20, as under:

"20. In   view   of   the   above   discussion,   we   come   to   the   following conclusion. To sum up: 
"In the light of the absence of  any material to show   that the excess     amount   was    received   by    the   petitioner       on misrepresentation, collusion, fraud or   negligence, the said excess amount cannot be recovered  out   of   the   retiral   dues,   after   retirement,   without   following   the   procedure   contemplated   under   Rule   43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. In this case the said   procedure, which is mandatory, has not been followed.   Therefore, the action of the respondents for recovery of   the amount from the retiral dues is not valid in law."