Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.53 seconds)Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994
In this context, reference may also be made to the decision
rendered by this Court in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2
SCC 521, wherein this Court observed as under:
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
(iii). This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (supra) held as
follows:
Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996
(1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of
India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4
SCC 416, V. Ganga Ram v. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139, Col. B.J.
Akkara (Retd.)
Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Manjeet Singh And Anr on 29 September, 2006
v. Govt. of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, Purshottam
Lal Das v. State of Bihar, (2006) 11 SCC 492, Punjab National
Bank v. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 and Bihar SEB v. Bijay
Bahadur, (2000) 10 SCC 99.”
(emphasis is ours)
13
First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this Court in its judgment in
Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra) recognized, that the issue of recovery
revolved on the action being iniquitous. Dealing with the subject of the
action being iniquitous, it was sought to be concluded, that when the
excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it
would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the
payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be
iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an action is
iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because the action
is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the instant
situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an
employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received
wrongfully for a long span of time. It is apparent, that a government
employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to
be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would
make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family.
Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to cater, not only to
the education needs of those dependent upon him, but also their medical
requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Based on the above
consideration, we are of the view, that if the mistake of making a
14
wrongful payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the
employer to recover the same. However, if the payment is made for a
period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the
employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and
arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the
employee.