Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ appeal filed by the Deputy Director of Health Services and the Block Medical Officer against an order of a single judge setting aside a recovery order against the respondent, D. Govindaraj. The respondent was originally appointed as a Multi Purpose Health Assistant on 20.07.1989 and was promoted to Block Health Supervisor. He submitted a representation on 01.03.2012 claiming that a junior employee, Mr. P. Allimuthu, was drawing a higher salary since 01.02.2006, and sought rectification of pay anomaly. Pursuant to this, the respondent's pay was revised. However, the department later found that the pay fixed for Mr. Allimuthu was not in accordance with pay rules and Government Orders, and recovery proceedings were initiated against Mr. Allimuthu in December 2020, which remained unchallenged. Consequently, the department also refixed the respondent's pay and sought recovery of excess salary paid to him. The respondent challenged the recovery order in a writ petition, which was allowed by the single judge. The appellants challenged that order in the present writ appeal. The Division Bench noted that the respondent had retired from service. The court held that recovery of excess payment made to a government employee after retirement would result in hardship, and therefore, the order of the writ court setting aside the recovery was confirmed. The court also directed that the admissible pay and pension of the respondent be corrected in accordance with pay rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Salary - Hardship Principle - Recovery of excess payment made to a retired government employee after retirement results in hardship and is not sustainable - The court confirmed the setting aside of recovery order by the writ court, as the employee had retired and recovery would cause undue hardship (Paras 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess salary paid to a retired government employee can be sustained when the pay revision was based on an erroneous fixation of another employee.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The order of the writ court setting aside the recovery is confirmed. The admissible pay and pension of the respondent are to be corrected in accordance with pay rules.
Law Points
- Recovery of excess salary from retired employee is not permissible
- hardship principle
- pay revision based on erroneous fixation of another employee cannot be recovered after retirement
