AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 18.10.2000, in so far as it relates to the
recovery of the incentive increments paid to the members of the petitioner Association.
It has been stated as far as the teachers are concerned they are eligible for incentives for acquiring higher qualifications. Originally, a teacher was
eligible for two incentives in a cadre. Subsequently, for the entire cadre, a teacher was given two incentives. As far as P.G. Teachers were
concerned, who were appointed between 1.1.96 and 31.3.98, they were eligible for two incentives for higher qualifications in the VI Pay
Commission. However, by the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 12.2.2000, the incentives which were due to the members of the
petitioner Association have been denied. Hence, the petitioner Association has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner had placed before this Court, various decisions passed by
this Court under similar circumstances, holding that the recovery of the salaries paid or incentives granted cannot be recovered, unless it was due to
misrepresentation or fraud committed by the concerned claimants. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was no
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the members of the petitioner Association based on which the incentives had been granted to them.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not refuted the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
The recovery of the excess amount said to have been paid to the petitioner cannot be made, as held by this Court in its order, dated 27.6.2008,
made in W.P. No. 16150 of 2006 and as held in the following decisions:
4.1) In Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Supreme Court had held that it is not just and proper to
recover any excess amounts already paid to the petitioner, since the petitioners have received the higher scale of pay due to no fault of theirs.
4.2) The Supreme Court, in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , had held that the recovery of excess payment given by the authorities
concerned, by wrong construction of the relevant orders, without any misrepresentation by the employee, cannot be made.
4.3) The Supreme Court, in Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur and Anr. , had held that the recovery of the increments given,
not on account of any representation or misrepresentation, cannot be sustained, as it would not be in consonance with equity, good conscience,
justice and fairness.
4.4) In Union of India and Others Vs. Rekha Majhi, , the Supreme Court had refused to permit the recovery of excess payment made, since the
person against whom the recovery was to be made was the only breadwinner of the family and as she was, financially, not in a position to pay
back the excess dearness relief drawn.
4.5) In Purshottam Lal Das and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , the Supreme Court had held that the recovery of the excess amounts
paid to the employees could be recovered only in such cases where they have been found guilty of producing forged certificates or their
appointments had been secured on non-permissible grounds.
4.6) In the decision of the Supreme Court, in Babulal Jain Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , it was held that since the excess payment had been
made on misconception of law and not due to any mistake or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant, the recovery of the excess amount,
without issuing any show cause notice, is not justified.
4.7) In the decision of the Supreme Court, in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, , it has been held that where due to
confusion in date of birth due to negligence and lapses on the part of the authorities due to which a service holder worked beyond his service
tenure and was paid for it, no deduction could be made for that period from the retiral dues.
4.8) In the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Arumugam v. Registrar, Tamil University (2006) 3 M.L.J. 1025, it was held that when
the employee was not responsible for the wrong fixation, the excess payment made cannot be recovered, especially, after the retirement of the
employee and when the recovery was sought for after 17 years of service.
4.9) In D. Palavesamuthu v. T.N. Administrative Tribunal (2006) (3) L.L.N. 461, a Division Bench of this Court had held that when the fault of
excess payment was committed by the Department and their officers and it was not due to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be penalised after
the lapse of number of years, that too after his retirement.
4.10) In Kanthimathi, S.A. v. Director of School Education, Madras (2006) 1 M.L.J. 695, this Court had held that the recovery of excess amount
paid cannot be recovered when it was not due to the fault of the petitioner and when no opportunity had been given to her before the order of
recovery was passed. Since the salary paid to the petitioner was not on account of any misrepresentation and when the order had been passed
without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case, the impugned order of recovery was quashed.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and in view of the decisions cited above, the
impugned orders of the 1st respondent, dated 12.2.2000, issued in Ref.No.Lr.No.1661/E2/2000-4 and the order of the 2nd respondent, dated
18.10.2000, issued in the Ref.Na.Ka.No.147502/K-2-2000, are set aside, in so far as it relates to the recovery of the amounts already paid to
the petitioner as incentive increments.
However, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to his claim for re-fixation of the pay scale and
for claiming additional increments, if any, within a period of fifteen days from today and on such representation being made, the first respondent is
directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.