Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Sudha wd/o Bhagirath Meshram, is the widow of a deceased employee who worked as a Junior Lecturer at Zilla Parishad High School. The deceased employee died on 06.12.2016 while in service. The petitioner began receiving a family pension of Rs.14,250/- per month. During the fixation of grade pay, the deceased employee had given an undertaking to refund any excess amount paid to him. Subsequently, the respondent Zilla Parishad sought to recover an excess amount of Rs.2,62,841/- paid to the deceased due to wrong fixation of grade pay, by asking the petitioner to execute a consent letter for recovery from her pension. The petitioner challenged the communications dated 18.01.2021 and 22.04.2021 seeking such recovery. The court examined the law regarding recovery of excess payments, particularly in cases where the employee had not misrepresented and the excess was due to the employer's mistake. The court relied on precedents including Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, and others, which hold that recovery from employees belonging to Class III or IV or from pensioners is impermissible. The court noted that the deceased employee was a Class III employee and had died before recovery was sought. The undertaking given by the deceased did not bind the legal heirs, and the widow could not be made to suffer for the employer's error. The court quashed the impugned communications and directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered from the petitioner's pension within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - Undertaking by Employee - Legal Heirs - The court considered whether an employer can recover excess payment made to a deceased employee from his legal heirs based on an undertaking given by the deceased. The court held that recovery from legal heirs is not permissible when the excess payment was due to the employer's mistake and the employee had not misrepresented. The undertaking by the deceased employee does not bind the legal heirs, especially when the employee died before recovery was sought. (Paras 2-7)
B) Service Law - Family Pension - Recovery from Pension - The court held that recovery of excess payment from family pension of the widow is impermissible as it would cause hardship and the widow is not liable for the employer's error. The court relied on the principle that no recovery should be made from employees belonging to Class III or IV or from pensioners, as per State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employer can recover an amount paid in excess to a deceased employee from the legal heirs of the deceased employee, on the basis of an undertaking given by the deceased employee.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned communications dated 18.01.2021 and 22.04.2021, and directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered from the petitioner's pension within four weeks.
Law Points
- Recovery of excess payment
- undertaking by employee
- legal heirs
- pension
- family pension
- no misrepresentation
- employer's mistake
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 128
Writ Petition (WP) No. 4835/2021
A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
Ms. Rashi A. Deshpande for the petitioner, Mr. S.D. Zoting for the respondents
Smt Sudha wd/o Bhagirath Meshram
Zilla Parishad, through its Chief Executive Officer, District Gadchiroli; Zilla Parishad, through its Accounts Officer, Finance Department, District Gadchiroli; Zilla Parishad High School and Jr. College through its Principal, Bedgaon taluka – Korchi, District Gadchiroli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging recovery of excess payment from family pension of widow of deceased employee.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of communications dated 18.01.2021 and 22.04.2021 demanding recovery of Rs.2,62,841/- from her family pension.
Filing Reason
Respondents sought to recover excess payment made to deceased employee due to wrong fixation of grade pay, based on an undertaking given by the deceased, from the petitioner's family pension.
Issues
Whether an employer can recover an amount paid in excess to a deceased employee from the legal heirs of the deceased employee on the basis of an undertaking given by the deceased employee.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that recovery from legal heirs is impermissible as the excess payment was due to employer's mistake and the employee had not misrepresented.
Respondents argued that recovery was justified based on the undertaking given by the deceased employee.
Ratio Decidendi
Recovery of excess payment from legal heirs of a deceased employee is impermissible when the excess payment was due to the employer's mistake and the employee had not misrepresented. An undertaking given by the deceased employee does not bind the legal heirs, and recovery from family pension would cause hardship, especially when the employee died before recovery was sought. The principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih apply, prohibiting recovery from Class III/IV employees and pensioners.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether an employer can recover an amount paid in excess to a deceased employee from the legal heirs of the deceased employee, on the basis of undertaking given by the deceased employee is a question raised in this petition.
In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others reported 1999 Supp (1) SCC 18, the Supreme Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees.
The principle laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra) is that no recovery should be made from employees belonging to Class III or Class IV or from pensioners.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging communications dated 18.01.2021 and 22.04.2021 from respondent no. 2 seeking recovery of Rs.2,62,841/- from her family pension. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 27.03.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
