Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994
(emphasis supplied)
It is apparent, that in Shyam Babu Verma case, the higher pay
scale commenced to be paid erroneously in 1973. The same was
sought to be recovered in 1984 i.e. after a period of 11 years. In the
aforesaid circumstances, this Court felt that the recovery after
several years of the implementation of the pay scale would not be
just and proper. We therefore hereby hold, recovery of excess
payments discovered after five years would be iniquitous and
arbitrary, and as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India."
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
"13. First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this Court in its
judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir case recognised, that the issue of
recovery revolverd 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, if 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 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. (emphasis ours).
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
17. We, therefore, find the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, passed in the case of the four applicants
allowing recovery upto 01.01.2020 to be unsustainable. Such a direction,
if allowed to sustain, would be contrary to the law laid down in the
decision of the apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih & Ors
(supra) taken note of above. The order of the Tribunal is set aside.
1