Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sivasakthi, a Computer Operator working at the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri, against the State of Tamil Nadu and judicial authorities. She challenged an order dated 28.11.2022 which sought to recover Rs.1,23,589 as excess pay and allowances on the ground that annual increments sanctioned for the period 07/2017 to 2019 were inadmissible following an internal audit objection. The petitioner also prayed for regularisation of her services from the date of appointment with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed on 01.09.2015 and became an approved probationer on 10.01.2018. The impugned recovery was ordered after pay revision based on the audit report. The court noted that while unjust enrichment of public money is not permissible and the authorities can rectify pay fixation errors, the respondents could not prove any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The error had been committed by the Establishment itself, and recovering the amount after several years would cause extreme hardship. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which held that recovery from Group C and D employees in such circumstances is impermissible, the court confirmed the pay revision but set aside only the recovery direction. Any amount already recovered was ordered to be refunded within twelve weeks. The writ petition was thus partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of excess pay erroneously paid by employer - When recovery would cause extreme hardship and there is no misrepresentation by employee, it is impermissible - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner, a Computer Operator (Group C) at District Court, was subjected to pay revision and recovery of Rs.1,23,589 due to audit objection that annual increments for 2017-2019 were inadmissible. The respondents failed to establish any misrepresentation by the petitioner, and the error was committed by the Establishment. The court, applying principles from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that recovery after several years would be iniquitous and harsh, and therefore set aside the recovery portion of the impugned order. (Paras 2-6) B) Service Law - Pay revision based on audit objection - Employer has the right to rectify erroneous pay fixation and recover unjust enrichment - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The court held that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and the competent authority is empowered to correct pay fixation errors. Consequently, the revised pay fixation as per audit objection was confirmed, but the direction to recover excess pay was quashed. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent No.3's order dated 28.11.2022 for recovery of excess pay of Rs.1,23,589 from the petitioner, a Group C employee, is valid when no misrepresentation by the employee is established and the recovery is after a long period, and whether the services of the petitioner should be regularised.
Final Decision
The Court partly allowed the writ petition, confirming the pay revision but setting aside the recovery of excess pay. Impugned order was set aside only with respect to recovery. Any excess amount already recovered must be repaid within 12 weeks.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- recovery of excess pay impermissible if employee belongs to Group C/D
- no misrepresentation
- recovery after five years causes hardship
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
- pay revision upheld
- audit objection
- unjust gain of public money
