Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Sulbha Sharad Vithalkar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.1's school in 1985. At the time of joining, she possessed a B.A. degree and a Sangit Visharad degree from Gandharva University. Later, she passed M.A. in 1986. Her appointment was approved by Respondent No.2 (Education Inspector) and she was paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.365-760, later revised to Rs.1400-2600 pursuant to the 4th Pay Commission. After nearly 12 years of service, an objection was raised for the first time that the petitioner should have been treated as an untrained teacher because she did not possess a B.Ed. degree and the Sangit Visharad degree was not recognized by the State Government. On that basis, Respondent No.2 issued an office order dated 24 May 1999 directing recovery of salary paid to the petitioner with retrospective effect at the rate of Rs.2500 per month, and three instalments had already been recovered. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition. The court noted that there was no case of concealment of any fact or misrepresentation at the time of her appointment, and no serious issue was raised about her eligibility or qualification until the impugned order was passed. The court held that recovery of salary after such a long period, especially when the appointment was approved by the authority itself 14 years ago, is unjust and unsustainable. The court quashed the impugned order and directed that the amounts already recovered be refunded to the petitioner within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Salary - Lapse of Time - Recovery of salary paid to an employee cannot be ordered after a long period of time, especially when there was no misrepresentation or concealment of facts at the time of appointment - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1985, her appointment was approved by the Education Inspector, and she served for 14 years without any issue - The impugned order of recovery dated 24 May 1999 was quashed - Held that recovery after such long delay is unjust and unsustainable (Paras 2-4). B) Service Law - Estoppel - Approval of Appointment - Once the appointing authority approves the appointment and the employee continues in service for many years, the authority is estopped from later questioning the eligibility or qualification of the employee - The Education Inspector had approved the petitioner's appointment 14 years ago - Held that the authority cannot turn around and order recovery after such long acceptance (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order directing recovery of salary paid to the petitioner for the last several years, after her appointment was approved 14 years ago, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 24 May 1999 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amounts already recovered from the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Recovery of salary paid to an employee cannot be ordered after long lapse of time in absence of misrepresentation or fraud
- Approval of appointment by authority estops subsequent recovery
- Equivalence of qualifications cannot be questioned after years of acceptance
