Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking to quash an order of recovery of Rs.6,74,090/- from the DCRG benefits of the first petitioner's deceased husband, who had served as a Typist in the Judicial Department. The husband was appointed on 05.02.1997 and passed away on 17.04.2021. Following his death, the third respondent re-fixed his pay from Rs.50,200/- to Rs.48,800/- and ordered recovery of the excess amount, which the petitioners contested. They argued that the recovery was unjust and that they had made repeated representations for the refund without success. The court noted that the authorities failed to establish any misrepresentation by the deceased employee and recognized that recovery after a significant lapse of time would cause undue hardship. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the court outlined circumstances under which recovery is impermissible, including recovery from retired employees and those where excess payments were made for over five years. Ultimately, the court confirmed the pay revision but set aside the recovery order, directing the respondents to refund the excess amount within 12 weeks. The writ petition was partly allowed, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Recovery of Excess Pay - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioners sought to quash the recovery order of Rs.6,74,090/- from DCRG benefits and sought refund. The court held that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and directed the refund of the excess amount recovered (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery of excess pay from the DCRG benefits of the petitioner's husband was justified.
Final Decision
The court confirmed the pay revision but set aside the recovery order, directing the refund of Rs.6,74,090/- within 12 weeks.
Law Points
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
- recovery of excess pay
- DCRG benefits
- unjust enrichment
- legal principles on recovery
