Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.82 seconds)State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
43. The Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) a charter of fairness to certain
employees held that recovery of long-standing payments, even if
erroneous, is impermissible when the employee played no role in the
irregularity and has structured his life around such payments. The Court
caution that the law does not sanction the State's attempt to fix its own
lapse by punishing the innocent. The petitioner belongs squarely within
the class protected by that humane principle.
Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs The Govt. Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2006
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in B.J.
Akkara case [B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007)
1 SCC (L&S) 529] reveals a reiteration of the legal position recorded in
the earlier judgments rendered by this Court, inasmuch as, it was again
affirmed, that the right to recover would be sustainable so long as the
same was not iniquitous or arbitrary. In the observation extracted
above, this Court also recorded, that recovery from the employees in
lower rung of service, would result in extreme hardship to them. The
apparent explanation for the aforesaid conclusion is, that the employees
in lower rung of service would spend their entire earnings in the upkeep
and welfare of their family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be
recovered from them, it would cause them far more hardship, than the
11
reciprocal gains to the employer. We are therefore satisfied in
concluding, that such recovery from employees belonging to the lower
rungs (i.e. Class III and Class IV--sometimes denoted as Group C and
Group D) of service, should not be subjected to the ordeal of any
recovery, even though they were beneficiaries of receiving higher
emoluments, than were due to them. Such recovery would be iniquitous
and arbitrary and therefore would also breach the mandate contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Sahib Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 1994
"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should
be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on
account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular
dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief
against recovery of excess wrong payment of
emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following
conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995
Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu
Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4
SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt.
Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
(emphasis supplied)
Premised on the legal proposition considered above, namely, whether
on the touchstone of equity and arbitrariness, the extract of the
judgment reproduced above, culls out yet another consideration, which
12
would make the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is
apparent from the conclusions drawn in Syed Abdul Qadir case [Syed
Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S)
744] , that recovery of excess payments, made from the employees who
have retired from service, or are close to their retirement, would entail
extremely harsh consequences outweighing the monetary gains by the
employer. It cannot be forgotten, that a retired employee or an employee
about to retire, is a class apart from those who have sufficient service to
their credit, before their retirement. Needless to mention, that at
retirement, an employee is past his youth, his needs are far in excess of
what they were when he was younger. Despite that, his earnings have
substantially dwindled (or would substantially be reduced on his
retirement). Keeping the aforesaid circumstances in mind, we are
satisfied that recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary, if it is sought
to be made after the date of retirement, or soon before retirement. A
period within one year from the date of superannuation, in our
considered view, should be accepted as the period during which the
recovery should be treated as iniquitous. Therefore, it would be justified
to treat an order of recovery, on account of wrongful payment made to
an employee, as arbitrary, if the recovery is sought to be made after the
employee's retirement, or within one year from the date of his retirement
on superannuation.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996
"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should
be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on
account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular
dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief
against recovery of excess wrong payment of
emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following
conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995
Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu
Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4
SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt.
Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):
Gangubai Garad (L.Rs.)Balasaheb vs Mahadu Gangaram (L.Rs.)Prayagbai & ... on 27 April, 2020
"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should
be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on
account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular
dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief
against recovery of excess wrong payment of
emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following
conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995
Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu
Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4
SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt.
Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad on 11 December, 2008
In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad and Ors.3,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
State Of Karnataka And Anr vs Mangalore University Non-Teaching ... on 28 February, 2002
In State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Mangalore University Non-
Teaching Employees' Association and Ors. 4, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:-