Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Z.H. Lamak, a retired Lecturer, challenged an order dated 31.07.1996 directing recovery of Rs.1,04,989/- from her terminal/retiral benefits. She joined service in 1963 as a Tutor in English, and in 1977 her post was upgraded to Lecturer with effect from Academic Session 1975-76. In 1977, she acquired a Diploma in Teaching in English Language and was placed as Lecturer pursuant to Government Resolution dated 25.10.1977. The Government Resolution on revision of pay scales issued on 27.02.1989 introduced a Career Advancement Scheme. Clause 12 provided that every Lecturer is to be placed in Senior Scale after completing eight years of service after regular appointment. Clause 13 stipulated that a Lecturer who has put in eight years in Senior Scale becomes eligible for Selection Grade. However, in 1999, the petitioner was placed directly in Selection Grade with effect from 01.01.1986, without being placed in Senior Scale. The respondents sought to recover the excess payment made due to this erroneous placement. The court noted that the basic facts were not in dispute. The petitioner had not misrepresented or committed any fraud; the mistake was on the part of the respondents. The court held that recovery from a retired employee without any fault on her part is unjust and cannot be sustained. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - Career Advancement Scheme - Recovery from terminal benefits of a retired employee without any fault or misrepresentation on her part is unjust and cannot be sustained - The petitioner was placed directly in Selection Grade without being placed in Senior Scale, which was contrary to the Scheme - However, the employee did not misrepresent or commit any fraud - Held that recovery of Rs.1,04,989/- from retiral benefits is quashed (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess payment made to a retired employee due to erroneous placement in selection grade without fault of the employee is permissible
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 31.07.1996 is quashed. Respondents are directed to refund any amount already recovered from the petitioner within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Recovery of excess payment from retired employee without fault of employee is unjust
- Career Advancement Scheme requires placement in senior scale before selection grade
- No misrepresentation by employee
- Recovery from terminal benefits impermissible
