Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Recovery of Excess Pay in Ordnance Factory Case. Recovery of Excess Amount Paid Due to Employer's Mistake Held Impermissible When Employees Are in Same or Higher Pay Scale and No Misrepresentation Is Involved.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 84
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, employees of Ordnance Factory Bhandara, were granted a higher pay scale by the employer. Subsequently, the employer sought to recover the excess amount paid, alleging that the grant was a mistake. The petitioners challenged the recovery order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their application. Aggrieved, they filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court considered the submissions and relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Syed Abdul Qadir vs State of Bihar and State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer). The court held that recovery of excess payment from employees is impermissible when the mistake is attributable to the employer, the employees are in the same or higher pay scale, and there is no misrepresentation or fraud by them. The court quashed the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the employer, directing that no recovery be made from the petitioners.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - Mistake by Employer - Recovery of excess amount paid to employees due to employer's mistake is impermissible when employees are in the same or higher pay scale and there is no misrepresentation or fraud by them - The court relied on the principle that recovery from employees in the same or higher pay scale is not permissible as it would cause hardship - Held that the impugned orders of recovery are quashed and set aside (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether recovery of excess amount paid to employees due to a mistake by the employer in granting higher pay scale is permissible when the employees are in the same or higher pay scale and there is no misrepresentation by them.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and order dated 26.05.2016 passed by respondent no.3 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to make recovery of excess amount received by the petitioners towards grant of higher pay scale.

Law Points

  • Recovery of excess payment from employees is impermissible when the mistake is attributable to the employer
  • the employee is in the same or higher pay scale
  • and no misrepresentation is involved
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 136

Writ Petition No.2629/2017

2020-02-05

Ravindra V. Ghuge, S.M. Modak

B. Lahiri for petitioners, S.A. Chaudhari for respondents

Mandeep Singh Kohli and others

Union of India and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging recovery of excess amount paid to employees due to mistake in grant of higher pay scale.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of order dated 10.03.2017 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal and order dated 26.05.2016 passed by respondent no.3, and direction not to recover excess amount.

Filing Reason

The employer sought to recover excess amount paid to petitioners due to alleged mistake in granting higher pay scale.

Previous Decisions

Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed O.A. No.422 of 2016 on 10.03.2017.

Issues

Whether recovery of excess amount paid to employees due to employer's mistake is permissible when employees are in same or higher pay scale and no misrepresentation is involved.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that recovery is impermissible as per Supreme Court judgments. Respondents argued in support of recovery.

Ratio Decidendi

Recovery of excess payment from employees is impermissible when the mistake is attributable to the employer, the employee is in the same or higher pay scale, and there is no misrepresentation or fraud by the employee.

Judgment Excerpts

Having considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondents, we have perused the petition paper book and the following judgments/ orders :- (a) Sayed Abdul Qadir vs State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475. (b) State of Punjab and others etc vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc, reported in 2015

Procedural History

The petitioners filed O.A. No.422/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench Nagpur, which was dismissed on 10.03.2017. Aggrieved, they filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Pepsu Tenancy Act Surplus Area Dispute; Collector's Review Without Notice Violates Natural Justice and Civil Court Decree Not Covered by Section 32-DD. Declaratory Decree That Land Never Belonged to Person Does Not Dimi...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Actual Promotion Benefits with Full Monetary Arrears from Due Date. Petitioner, an Executive Engineer, granted notional promotion from 11.2.2005 but actual benefits only from 7.3.2013; Court holds restrictio...