Case Note & Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 51 of 2009. The respondent, Nasiruddin Sadruddin, was an Artisan Grade-III employee of the Central Railway. Pursuant to a Railway Board policy decision dated 28 September 1998 regarding up-gradation of posts, he was upgraded to Artisan Grade III with effect from 1 September 1998, subject to passing a prescribed trade test within a reasonable time. He passed the examination on 4 August 2000. The Railway authorities initiated recovery proceedings to recover the difference in salary paid to him from 1 September 1998 to 4 August 2000, i.e., the period before he passed the test. The respondent contended that he had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation and that the excess payment was made by the Railway authorities themselves. The CAT, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Col. BJ Akkara (Retd) vs. Government of India & Others, held that since there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, recovery could not be made. The CAT also directed refund of a small portion already recovered with simple interest. The High Court, in its judgment dated 6 June 2016, dismissed the petition, finding no reason to interfere with the CAT's order. The court noted that the record bore out that the respondent had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation, and therefore, recovery was impermissible.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - No Fraud or Misrepresentation - The issue was whether the employer could recover excess salary paid to an employee due to administrative error when the employee had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation. The court held that recovery is not permissible in such circumstances, relying on the principle laid down in Col. BJ Akkara (Retd) vs. Government of India & Others. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct in restraining the recovery of excess salary paid to the respondent employee, who had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court found no reason to interfere with the CAT's order, which restrained recovery of excess salary paid to the respondent and directed refund of a small portion already recovered with simple interest.
Law Points
- Recovery of excess payment from employee without fraud or misrepresentation is impermissible
- Principle of no recovery in absence of fraud or misrepresentation
- Reliance on Col. BJ Akkara (Retd) vs. Government of India & Others
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 57
Writ Petition No. 6978 of 2010
Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w D. A. Dube for Petitioners; None for Respondent
Union of India, Through the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CSTM; The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal Division, Bhusawal
Shri Nasiruddin Sadruddin, Artisan (Tech), Grade III, Under SSE (DZL), Loco / Bhusawal, Central Railway
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 an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (Union of India) sought to set aside the CAT order restraining recovery of excess salary paid to the respondent and directing refund of a portion already recovered with interest.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the CAT order which restrained recovery of excess salary paid to the respondent employee, who had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 51 of 2009 restrained the petitioners from recovering the excess amount and directed refund of a small portion already recovered with simple interest.
Issues
Whether recovery of excess salary paid to an employee without fraud or misrepresentation is permissible.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the excess payment was made due to administrative error and should be recovered.
The respondent contended that he had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation and the payment was made by the Railway authorities.
Ratio Decidendi
Recovery of excess payment made to an employee due to administrative error, without any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, is not permissible. The principle laid down in Col. BJ Akkara (Retd) vs. Government of India & Others was applied.
Judgment Excerpts
The Central Administrative Tribunal by referring the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases and more particularly, a law laid down by the Apex Court, summarizing the whole law on the subject in the case of Col. BJ Akkara (Retd) vs. Government of India & Others [2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 529], came to the conclusion that since it was established that the Respondent had not committed any fraud or made any misrepresentation, recovery could not have been made from the employee.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Procedural History
The respondent filed Original Application No. 51 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the recovery proceedings. The CAT allowed the application, restraining recovery and directing refund of a portion already recovered with simple interest. The Union of India then filed Writ Petition No. 6978 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed on 6 June 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
