Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Gorakh Kashinath Solanki, was initially employed in 1978 as a Junior Assistant Scientist and retired on 31.05.2010 upon attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the respondent authorities, taking recourse to a circular dated 17.08.2010, passed an order on 31.03.2012 revising the pay scale admissible to the petitioner since 30.05.1984 and directing recovery of the excess amount paid to him during his employment from his pensionary benefits. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court heard the matter and observed that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The court further noted that the petitioner had retired and the excess payment, if any, was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Relying on settled legal principles, the court held that recovery from pensionary benefits after retirement is unjust and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2012 and directed the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law, without any deduction on account of the alleged excess payment. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Revision - Recovery from Pension - The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged the order dated 31.03.2012 directing revision of pay scale from 30.05.1984 and recovery of excess amount from pensionary benefits. The court held that the order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that recovery from pensionary benefits after retirement is unjust, especially when the employee had retired and the excess payment was not due to any misrepresentation by him. (Paras 1-6) B) Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - The impugned order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the order on this ground alone. (Para 5) C) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - The court relied on the principle that no recovery can be made from an employee for excess payment made by the employer due to a mistake, especially after retirement, unless the employee had misrepresented or concealed facts. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order directing revision of pay scale and recovery of excess amount from pensionary benefits of a retired employee is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2012 and directed the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law, without any deduction on account of the alleged excess payment. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Recovery from pensionary benefits without notice is unjust
- Pay revision after retirement without opportunity of hearing is violative of natural justice
- No recovery of excess payment made to employee due to employer's mistake
