Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala . on 2 May, 2022 cites

Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

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.” (12) In Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others3 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants­teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/ understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” (13) In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others4 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and 4 (2015) 4 SCC 334 11 disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1