Pinnacle Court says can’t force staffer to refund raise given erroneously long back

03-05-2022

Can increments granted to an employee is recovered from him after his retirement on the bottom that they were granted erroneously? The Supreme Court on Monday said it can't be done if there was no misrepresentation made or fraud committed by the worker.

A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath came to the rescue of a government teacher from Kerala against whom recovery proceedings were initiated by the state for wrongly granting him increments. The SC delivered to an end his legal battle of 20 years during which he had lost the case within the Kerala supreme court.

“This court in a very catena of choices has consistently held that if the surplus amount wasn't paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the worker or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the premise of a specific interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances don't seem to be recoverable,” the bench said.

“This relief against the recovery is granted not due to any right of the workers but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to produce relief to the workers from the hardship that may be caused if the recovery is ordered. This court has further held that if in an exceedingly given case, it's proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in more than what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a brief time of wrong payment, the matter being within the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess,” the bench said.

In this case, the teacher took study leave in 1973 but that leave period wasn't considered while granting him promotion. Twenty-four years later in 1997 he was issued notice and recovery proceedings were initiated against him after he retired in 1999. He first approached the general public Redressal Complaint Cell of the chief minister of Kerala but wasn't granted relief after which he moved the judicature which dismissed his plea. 

Allowing his petition, the apex court said that employees can't be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the surplus payment shouldn't be ordered, especially when the worker has subsequently retired.