Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
S B Kareliya & 2 vs Executive Engineer & 3 on 3 March, 2016 cites

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

"59.   Undoubtedly,   the   excess   amount   that   has   been   paid   to   the   appellant   teachers   was   not   because   of   any   misrepresentation   or   fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that   the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they   Page 16 of 20 HC-NIC Page 16 of 20 Created On Sun Mar 06 02:20:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/438/2013 JUDGMENT were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that   the   Finance   Department   had,   in   its   counter­   affidavit,   admitted   that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. 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." (emphasis is ours)  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 would make   the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is apparent from the   conclusions  drawn  in Syed  Abdul  Qadir's  case  (supra),  that recovery  of   excess payments, made from 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 of the date of his   retirement on superannuation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next