Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies on Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as two decisions of co- ordinate Benches of this court in Rajkumar Jana Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in 2018(3) CLJ (Cal) 58 and Niladri Kumar Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal (WP 24231(W) of 2017) to urge that barring a few exceptions, courts have repeatedly held that overdrawn amounts will have to be repaid by the employer in disbursing the retirement benefits to the employee.

6. According to counsel representing the petitioners in these writ petitions, the law on the subject has been settled in Rafiq Masih, which summarised the instances where recovery by the employers would not be permissible. Counsel urges that paragraph 14 of Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand has been explained in a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883, which sought to resolve the apparent difference of opinion expressed in Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18 on the one hand and Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 on the other.

11. The law was finally settled in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. After considering the ratio of the earlier Rafiq Masih ((2014) 8 SCC 883 which was in answer to a reference in relation to the apparent conflict in the views expressed in Shyam Babu Verma, Sahib Ram on the one hand and Chandi Prasad Uniyal on the other), Syed Abdul Qadir, Shyam Babu Verma, Sahib Ram and B.J. Akkara, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that recovery cannot be permitted where it is "iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an employee to bare the financial burden, offer refund of payment received wrongfully for a long span of time" (paragraph 13 of Rafiq Masih). The court found support from the decisions of B.J. Akkara, Shyam Babu Verma and for coming to the aforesaid proposition and placed particular emphasis on paragraph 59 of Syed Abdul Qadir set out above. The Supreme Court held that recovery of excess payments made from the employees who have retired from service or were close to retirement would entail extremely harsh consequences outweighing the monetary gains by the employer. The court made a distinction between a retired employee or one who is about to retire from those who had sufficient service left before retirement. The court concluded that recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary if it is sought to be made after the death of retirement or soon before retirement and that a period within one year from the date of superannuation should be accepted as the period during which the recovery should be treated as iniquitous.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

13. All the writ petitioners before this court are teachers who have retired from their respective schools and would therefore come under the second instance enumerated under paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih which hold that recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year, cannot be permitted in law.