INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(S)No.6343of2009 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus 1.
JharkhandStateElectricityBoardthroughitsChairman,Ranchi
2.Secretary,JharkhandStateElectricityBoard
3.DirectorofAccounts,JharkhandStateElectricityBoard
4.PersonnelOfficer,ElectricSupplyCircle,JharkhandStateElectricity Board,Daltonganj,Palamau Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner :Mr.[ENTITY],Advocate FortheRespondents :Mr.[ENTITY],Advocate th 05/Dated:30July,2012
1. Thepresentwritpetitionhasbeenpreferredagainsttheorderpassedby therespondents,whichareatAnnexures2,3and3/1dated12thMarch,2008, 11th July,2006and11th August,2006respectively,whereby,thesalarypaidto thepetitionerhasbeenorderedtobewithdrawnandalsoorderofrecoveryhas alsobeenpassedbytherespondentsandthattooingrossviolationofcatenaof decisionsrenderedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtaswellasFullBenchofthis Courtandalsoingrossviolationofprinciplesofnaturaljustice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no misrepresentationorfraudplayedbythepetitionerforgettingtheamount,in question.Thisisnotanallegationbytheothersideuponthepetitioner.Evenin thecounteraffidavit,thisallegationuponthepetitionerisabsent.Thus,without therebeinganymisrepresentationorfraudplayedbythepetitioner,evenifthe amountispaidbymistake,thesamecannotberecovered.Learnedcounselfor thepetitionerhasrelieduponfollowingdecisions:
(i) [CASE NUMBER] (ii) (2006)11SCC709, (iii) 2008(3)JCR655(FullBench) (iv) 2012(2)JCR315
Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatinlightoftheaforesaid decisions,theordersatAnnexures,2,3and3/1maybequashedandsetaside and the amount already deducted may be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner,withinstipulatedtimeandifitisnotpaidwithinstipulatedtime,the samemaybeorderedtobepaidwithsomeinterest.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was paidhigheramountofsalary,forwhich,hewasnotentitled.Thedetailshave beengiveninthecounteraffidavitand,therefore,orderofrecoverywaspassed 2 by the respondents as per Annexures 3and 3/1 andthere is adjustmentof Rs.71,820/fromthegratuityamount,whichispayabletothepetitioner.Thus, noerrorshavebeencommittedbytherespondentswhilepassingtheordersat Annexures 2, 3 and 3/1 and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothefacts andcircumstancesofthecase,Iherebyquashandsetasidetheorderspassedby therespondentsdated12th March,2008atAnnexure2,orderdated11th July, 2006atAnnexure3aswellasorderdated11thAugust,2006atAnnexure3/1to theextenttowhichitaffects the presentpetitioner,mainlyforthefollowing factsandreasons:
(i) The present petitioner was appointed as Bill Clerk with the respondentson1st November,1969and,thereafter,heworkedhonestly, sincerely,diligentlyandtothesatisfactionoftherespondents.
(ii) It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner was given time to time promotionsandwithoutanymisrepresentationorfraudplayedbyhim,he wasalsogivenhigherpayscales.ThepetitionerretiredasanAccounts Assistanton31stMay,2007.
(iii) It further appears that the order at Annexure2 has been passed aftertheretirementofthepresentpetitioneri.e.on12 thMarch,2008and lookingtotheorderatAnnexure2,itappearsthatnoreasonshavebeen assigned for adjustment of Rs. 71,820/ from the amount of gratuity payabletothepetitioner.Whatisthecalculationofthisamount,nobody knows.Fromwherethisfigurehascomeinthemindoftheconcerned officer,thatisalsonotknown.Nofigurecancomeinthemindofthe officerfromheavenorsky.Thereisboundtobeadefinitecalculationand theremustbecogentreasonfordeductionofthesizeableamounttothe tuneofRs.71,820/.NothinghasbeenstatedintheordersatAnnexure2.
The order at Annexure2 is not only a non speaking order, but, it is violativeofprinciplesofnaturaljustice.
(iv) MoreoverlookingtotheorderatAnnexure3tothememoofthe petitionaswellasorderatAnnexure3/1,itappearsthatthereissome allegation levelled against the present petitioner that he has received higher amount of salary to the tune of Rs. 58,72942 paise. Both the ordersaredated11th June,2006and11th August,2006respectively.No calculation has been given for this amount. What is the basis of this calculationisnotreflectedintheorders.Thisfigurecannotcomeinthe 3 mindoftheofficerfromheavenorsky.Thereoughttohavebeendefinite calculationofsuchamount.Nonoticehasbeengivenbeforepassingthe ordersatAnnexures3and3/1.Itissubmittedbylearnedcounselforthe petitionerthathadanoticebeengiventothepetitioner,itwouldhave beenpointedoutthatthereisnoillegalityingettingsalarybyhim.The aforesaidamountwaswronglypaidintheyear1979and1982,asstated inparagraphs3,4,5and6ofthecounteraffidavit.
(v) Itoughttohavekeptinmindbytherespondents,whoisa"State" withinthemeaningofArticle12oftheConstitutionthatifthereasonsare notstatedintheimpugnedorders,thenanonspeakingordercannotbe justifiedbygivingdetailedreasoninginthecounteraffidavit.
(vi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MohinderSinghGillandanr.v[ENTITY].,asreportedin(1978)1SCC405,especiallyatparagraph 8,asunder:
"8.Thesecondequallyrelevantmatteristhatwhenastatutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validitymustbejudgedbythereasonssomentionedandcannot besupplementedbyfreshreasonsintheshapeofaffidavitor otherwise.Otherwise,anorderbadinthebeginningmay,bythe timeitcomestoCourtonaccountofachallenge,getvalidated byadditionalgroundslaterbroughtout.Wemayheredraw attentiontotheobservationsofBose,[ENTITY]:
Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequentlygivenbytheofficermakingtheorderofwhathe meant,orofwhatwasinhismind,orwhatheintendedtodo. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have publiceffectandareintendedtoaffecttheactingsandconduct of those towhom theyare addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they growolder."
(Emphasissupplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, it appears that the order at Annexure2dated12thMarch,2008,orderatAnnexure3dated11thJuly, 2006andorderatAnnexure3/1dated11thAugust,2006arethoroughly nonspeakingorders.Sizeableamounthasbeenorderedtobededucted. Noreasonsandcalculationshavebeenassignedand,therefore,whatever reasons have been given in the counter affidavit are of no use. The reasons ought to have been given in the administrative order, itself, otherwiseallnonspeaking,voidorillegalorderwillbespeaking,validor 4 legalorderbythepassageoftimeandbygivingreasonsinthecounter affidavit,whatisunderchallengeisthereasoningoftheimpugnedorder andnotthesubsequentwisdomoftheGovernment.Thecounteraffidavit is a subsequent wisdom of the Government authority and this subsequentlysuppliedwisdomcannotcaretheinherentillegalityinthe impugnedorders.
(vii) Looking to the impugned orders at Annexures2, 3 and 3/1, it appearsthatthereisnoallegationlevelledagainstthepetitionerthathe wasgivenhighersalarybecauseofhismisrepresentationorfraudplayed by him. With an open eye of the respondents, the petitioner's higher salarywassanctionedbythehighrankingofficers,everymonth.Learned counselfortherespondentssubmittedthattheaforesaidamountswere paidtothepetitionersintheyear1979andintheyear1982,wrongly and, therefore, the same has been ordered to be deducted by the impugnedordersi.e.afterapproximatelytwoandhalfdecades.
(viii) Absolutely,illegalityhasbeencommittedbytherespondents,while passingtheimpugnedordersatAnnexures2,3and3/1.
(ix) IthasbeenheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtincaseof Shyam BabuVerma&othersVsUnionofIndia&others,asreportedin(1994) 2SCC521,especiallyatparagraphno.11,asunder:
"11.Althoughwehaveheldthatthepetitionerswereentitledonly tothepayscaleofRs330480intermsoftherecommendationsof theThirdPayCommissionw.e.f.January1,1973andonlyafter theperiodof10years,theybecameentitledtothepayscaleofRs 330560butastheyhavereceivedthescaleofRs330560since 1973duetonofaultoftheirsandthatscaleisbeingreducedin theyear1984witheffectfromJanuary1,1973,itshallonlybe just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has alreadybeenpaidtothem. Accordingly,wedirectthatnosteps shouldbetakentorecoverortoadjustanyexcessamountpaidto thepetitionersduetothefaultoftherespondents,thepetitioners beinginnowayresponsibleforthesame."
(Emphasissupplied)
(x) Moreover, ithasbeenheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt inthe case of [ENTITY] Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in 1995 Supp(1)SCC18,especiallyinparagraph5,whichreadsasunder:
"5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educationalqualifications.Underthecircumstancestheappellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellanthadbeenpaidhissalaryontherevisedscale.However,it isnotonaccountofanymisrepresentationmadebytheappellant thatthebenefitofthehigherpayscalewasgiventohimbutby wrongconstructionmadebythePrincipalforwhichtheappellant 5 cannotbeheldtobeatfault.Underthecircumstancestheamount paidtilldatemaynotberecoveredfromtheappellant "
(Emphasissupplied)
(xi) Ithas been heldbythe Hon'bleSupremeCourtincaseof Bihar StateElectricityBoard&AnotherVs.BijayBhadur&Another,reported in [CASE NUMBER], especiallyinparagraphnos.7,8,9,10and11, whichreadasunder:
"7. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have been allowed annual incrementsevenwithoutpassingthe HindiNotingand Drafting Examination which according to Mr [ENTITY], learned advocate appearing for the appellant Board has become a condition precedent and part of their service conditions and questionoftherebeinganyentitlementdehorsthesamedoesnot and cannot arise. Mr [ENTITY] contended that [SECTION] is rathercategoricalonthisscoreastothedateofentitlementand sinceitsdeemedeffectasapartoftheconditionofservice,the appellantBoardiswithinitsauthorityandjurisdictiontodeduct the amounts paid. In short, the submission of Shri [ENTITY] on behalfoftheappellantBoardisthatsincethewritpetitionersare notentitledtoreceiveanyincrement,questionofretentionofthe amountspaidwhetherbymistakeoffactorotherwise doesnot andcannotarise.We,however,arenotinapositiontolendany credence to the same by reason of the fact that while the increments granted have been sought to be recovered but promotionsgivenhavenotbeenwithdrawnorcancelled,theBoard being the governmental agency and fairness being the only accepted methodology cannot maintain a dual standard on the basisoftheselfsameRegulation.Regulation7oftheRegulation itselfprovidesthatthereshallnotbeanyincrementorany promotion nor would the employees be allowed to cross the efficiencybar.Thepetitionershavebeengivenduepromotionsand asamatteroffactthepetitionerinCWJCNo.4576of1997is postedasanAccountantintheElectricitySupplySubDivisionat Sheohar Town in District Sheohar on promotion. Of the dual benefitsconferredtheBoardhoweverthuswithdrewonlyonepart ofthebenefitundertheresolutionwhereasitlentablindeyeas regardstheotherpartofthebenefitflowingfromtheresolution. This,inourviewisnotpermissiblesincedualstandardsarenot onlynonacceptablebutoughttobeavoidedmoresobyreasonof thefactumoftheappellantbeinganauthoritywithinthemeaning ofArticle12oftheConstitution.
8. Thecontentioninsupportoftheappealasregardsthedeemed incorporationinthetermsandconditionsofservicecannotalso findanysupportbyreasonofthefactthatunilateralchangeof termsneednotbehad.Thereisnodocumentaryevidenceavailable ontherecordofthismatterthroughwhichevenanintimationto thestaffcanbesaidtohavebeeneffectedandintheabsenceof whichquestionofaffordinganycredencetothesubmissionofMr [ENTITY]onthisscoredoesnotarise.
9. Further,ananalysisofthefactualscoreatthisjuncturegoes to show that the respondents appointed in the year 1966 were allowedtohavedueincrementsintermsoftheserviceconditions and salary structure and were also granted promotions in due course of service and have been asked after an expiry of about 1415 years to replenish the Board exchequer from out of the employees'salarieswhichwerepaidtothemsincetheyear1979.It 6 is on this score the High Court observed that as both the petitionershavepassedtheexaminationthoughintheyear1993, theirentitlementforreliefcannotbedoubtedinanyway.
10. TheHighCourtalsoreliedontheunreporteddecisionofthe learned Single Judge in the case of [PRECEDENT] payments have been made without any representation or a misrepresentation, the appellant Board could not possibly be grantedanylibertytodeductorrecovertheexcessamountpaidby wayofincrementsatanearlierpointoftime.Theactoractson thepartoftheappellantBoardcannotunderanycircumstancesbe saidtobeinconsonancewithequity,goodconscienceandjustice. Theconceptoffairnesshasbeengivenagoby.Assuchtheactions initiated for recovery cannot be sustained under any circumstances.Thisorderhoweverberestrictedtothefactsofthe present writ petitioners. It is clarified that [SECTION] will operate on its own and the Board will be at liberty to take appropriatestepsin accordance withlawexcepthoweverinthe caseorcaseswhichhas/haveattainedfinality.
11. Whilewerecordourconcurrenceasnotedabove,inregardto thedecisionofthematterinissueandinparticularreferenceto thefactualaspectwedonotfeelinclinedtoaccepttheobservations oftheHighCourtpertainingtoRegulation8oftheRegulation.Be itnotedthattheHighCourtinpara13ofthejudgmentobserved thattheBoardshallnotbeallowedtopassanorderforrecoveryof thesaidamountasthesaidamounthasalreadybecomedueto them. This observation sounds contrary to [SECTION] of the Regulations which records that no arrears of the stopped incrementsshallbepayableeventhoughthepersonwouldpassthe examinationlateron.We,therefore,recordourdisapprovaltothis observationoftheHighCourt."
(Emphasissupplied)
(xii) IthasbeenheldbythisCourtinthecaseof [ENTITY].M/s CentralCoalfieldsLtd.andanother,asreportedin 2001(1)JCR175 especiallyinparagraphs4and10,whichreadasunder:
"4.Therespondentsintheircounteraffidavithaveacceptedthatthe petitioner retired under V.R. Scheme w.e.f. 20th August, 1999. However,pleahasbeentakenthatthedateofbirthwasrecordedas 26th October, 1941 and the date of appointment was 23rd November,1958.Onthebasisofdateofappointment,thepetitioner havingfoundtohaveworkedfor42years11monthsand3days andasnopersoncanworkmorethan42years,theexcesspayment madehasbeenadjustedfromtheretiralbenefits.
10. In the circumstances, the respondents cannot deduct any amountoradjustfromthesalaryofthepetitionerontheground that hehasworkedformorethan11(eleven)monthsbeyondthe periodofretirement."
(Emphasissupplied)
(xiii) Ithas been heldbythe Hon'blePatna HighCourtin thecaseof [PRECEDENT],asreportedin 2003(1)PLJR9especiallyinparagraphs4and5,whichreadasunder:
"4.Rightlyorwrongly,thepetitionerSridharPandeywaspermitted toworkanddrawhissalary.Theperiodofwhichheworkedhewill 7 beentitledtotheemoluments.Ifhewasgivenworkasaresultof anycollusionbetweentheofficialsitisuptotheStateGovernmentto take action against the officer concerned, who permitted this extensionofservicebeyondretirement. Onrecord,thereisnothing against the petitioner that he may have committed any misrepresentation or fraud so as to extract from the period of retirement.
5.Inthecircumstances,thereisnooccasionfortherecoveryofthe amount which was paid to the petitioner for having worked but aftertheperiodofretirement.Insofarasthepensionisconcerned, theheirsofSridharPandeywillbeentitledtoanyarrearsofpension andconsequentialfamilypension."
(Emphasissupplied)
(xiv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PurshottamLalDas&othersVs.StateofBihar &others,reportedin [CASE NUMBER] especiallyinparagraphnos.7,10and11,which readasunder: "7. Sofarastherecoveryisconcerned,inthenormalcourseifthe promotion/appointment is void ab initio, a mere fact that the employeehadworkedinthepostconcernedforlongcannotbea ground for not directing recovery. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the State were rendered in a different backdrop.Inthosecasestheappellantswereguiltyofproducing forgedcertificatesortheappointmentshadbeensecuredonnon permissible grounds. In that background this Court held that recoveryispermissible.Onthecontrary,thefactsituationofthe present case bears some similarity to [ENTITY] v. State of Haryana,BiharSEBv.BijayBhadurandStateofKarnatakav. MangaloreUniversityNonTeachingEmployees'Assn.
10. The High Court itself noted that the appellants deserve sympathyasfornofaultoftheirs,recoveriesweredirectedwhen admittedlytheyworkedinthepromotionalposts.Butreliefwas deniedonthegroundthatthosewhogranted(sic)hadcommitted grossirregularities.
11. While,therefore,notacceptingthechallengetotheordersof reversiononthepeculiarcircumstancesnoticed,wedirectthatno recoveryshallbemadefromtheamountsalreadypaidinrespectof the promotional posts. However, no arrears or other financial benefits shall be granted in respect of the period concerned."
(Emphasissupplied)
(xv) IthasbeenheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtincaseofCol.B.J. Akkara(Retd.)Vs.GovernmentofIndia&others, reportedin (2006) 11SCC709,especiallyinparagraphnos.27,28,29,30,whichreadas under:
"27.Thelastquestiontobeconsiderediswhetherreliefshouldbe grantedagainsttherecoveryoftheexcesspaymentsmadeon accountofthewronginterpretation/understandingofthecircular dated761999.ThisCourthasconsistentlygrantedreliefagainst recoveryofexcesswrongpaymentofemoluments/allowancesfrom anemployee,ifthefollowingconditionsarefulfilled(vide[ENTITY]v.StateofHaryana,ShyamBabuVermav.UnionofIndia, 8 [PRECEDENT] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director):
(a) Theexcesspaymentwasnotmadeonaccountof any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.
(b) Suchexcesspaymentwasmadebytheemployer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently foundtobeerroneous.
28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is grantedbycourtsnotbecauseofanyrightintheemployees,butin equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees fromthehardshipthatwillbecausedifrecoveryisimplemented.A governmentservant,particularlyoneinthelowerrungsofservice wouldspendwhateveremolumentshereceivesfortheupkeepofhis family.Ifhereceivesanexcesspaymentforalongperiod,hewould spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequentactiontorecovertheexcesspaymentwillcauseundue hardship tohim,reliefisgranted in thatbehalf.Butwhere the employeehadknowledgethatthepaymentreceivedwasinexcess ofwhatwasdueorwronglypaid,orwheretheerrorisdetectedor correctedwithinashorttimeofwrongpayment,courtswillnot grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicialdiscretion,courtsmayonthefactsandcircumstancesof anyparticularcaserefusetograntsuchreliefagainstrecovery.
29. On thesame principle,pensionerscan alsoseekadirection thatwrongpaymentsshouldnotberecovered,aspensionersarein a more disadvantageous position when compared to inservice employees.Anyattempttorecoverexcesswrongpaymentwould causeunduehardshiptothem.Thepetitionersarenotguiltyof anymisrepresentationorfraudinregardtotheexcesspayment. NPAwasaddedtominimumpay,forpurposesofsteppingup,due toawrongunderstandingbytheimplementingdepartments.We arethereforeoftheviewthattherespondentsshallnotrecoverany excesspaymentsmadetowardspensioninpursuanceofthecircular dated 761999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 1192001.Insofarasanyexcesspaymentmadeafterthecircular dated1192001,obviouslytheUnionofIndiawillbeentitledto recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheldandaspensionershavebeenputonnoticeinregardtothe wrongcalculationsearliermade.
30.AfaintattemptwasmadebythelearnedAdditionalSolicitor General appearing for the respondents to contend that all such wrongpaymentscouldberecoveredandatbestthepensionersmay beentitledtotimeorinstalmentstoavoidhardship.[ENTITY].SujathaVedachalamthisCourtdidnotbarthe recoveryofexcesspay,butdirectedrecoveryineasyinstalments. Thesaiddecisiondoesnotlaydownaprinciplethatrelieffrom recoveryshouldnotbegrantedinregardtoemolumentswrongly paid in excess, or that only relief in such cases is grant of instalments. A direction to recover the excess payment in instalmentsoradirectionnottorecoverexcesspayment,ismade asaconsequentialdirection,afterthemainissuerelatingtothe validity of the order refixing or reducing the pay/allowance/pension isdecided.In some cases, the petitioners maymerelyseekquashingoftheorderrefixingthepayandmay not seek any consequential relief. In some cases, the petitioners may make a supplementary prayer seeking instalments in 9 regardtorefundoftheexcesspaymentifthevalidityoftheorder refixingthepayisupheld.Insomeothercases,thepetitionersmay praythatsuchexcesspaymentsshouldnotberecovered.Thegrant of consequential relief would, therefore, depend upon the consequentialprayermade.Iftheconsequentialprayerwasnotfor waiving the excess payment but only for instalments, the court wouldobviouslyconsideronlytheprayerforinstalments. Ifany decision which upholds the refixation of pay/pension does not contain any consequential direction not to recover the excess payment already made or contains a consequential direction to recovertheexcesspaymentininstalments,itisnottherebylaying downanypropositionoflawbutismerelyissuingconsequential direction in exercise of judicial discretion, depending upon the prayer for consequential relief or absence of prayer for consequential relief as the case may be, and the facts and circumstancesofthecase.Manyatimetheprayerforinstalments orwaiverofrecoveryofexcessismadenotinthepleadingsbut during arguments or when the order is dictated upholding the order revising or refixating the pay/pension. Therefore, the decisioninSujathaVedachalamwillnotcomeinthewayofrelief beinggrantedtothepensionersinregardtotherecoveryofexcess payments."
(Emphasissupplied) (xvi) IthasbeenheldbythisCourtinthecaseof[ENTITY] v.TheStateofJharkhand&ors.,asreportedin2008(3)JCR655(FB), atparagraphno.20,asunder:
"20. In view of the above discussion, we come to the following conclusion.Tosumup:
"Inthelightoftheabsenceofanymaterialtoshowthatthe excessamountwasreceivedbythepetitioneron misrepresentation, collusion, fraud or negligence, the said excessamountcannotberecovered outoftheretiraldues, after retirement, without following the procedure contemplatedunderRule43(b)oftheBiharPensionRules. Inthiscasethesaidprocedure,whichismandatory,hasnot beenfollowed.Therefore,theactionoftherespondentsfor recoveryoftheamountfromtheretiralduesisnotvalidin law."
(Emphasissupplied) (xvii) It has further been held by this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (4)JCR142,atparagraphs2and4,asunder:
"2. Learnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmittedthattheorderfor revisionofthepetitioners'paywasissuedbytherespondentsBank and there was no representation/ misrepresentation or fraud playedbythepetitionersforobtainingthesaidrevisedscale.The said amount, which was paid to the petitioners by the Bank towardsthearrearsofsalaryonthebasisoftherevisionofthepay scale,cannotberecovered/adjustedfromtheretiralbenefitsofthe petitioners. There is complete bar for such adjustments. The petitioners are not liable to refund the aid amount, even if subsequentlythe order of revision ofpay was cancelled.Learned counselplacedrelianceonadecisionoftheSupremeCourtrendered [PRECEDENT] and a Full Bench decision of this Court in [PRECEDENT].
4. Ihaveheardlearnedcounselforthepartiesandconsideredthe factsandmaterialsonrecordasalsothejudicialpronouncements. In [ENTITY] case (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically held that any amount paid to an employee without his misrepresentationcannotberecovered.In [ENTITY] case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court has held that after retirement, there is no relationship of employer and employee betweenthepartiesandtherecoveryoutoftheretiralduescannot bemade,exceptbyfollowingthedueprocedureestablishedbylaw. Nocontraryruleordecisionhasbeenproducedonbehalfofthe respondents."
(Emphasissupplied) (xviii)IthasbeenheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtincaseofStateof Bihar&OthersVs.[ENTITY], reportedin (2009)3 SCC117,especiallyinparagraphnos.16,19,23and24,whichreadas under:
"16.Moreover,forthesakeofargument,evenifweconsiderthat therespondenthadfraudulentlyenteredanotherdateofbirthin hisservicebook,ashadbeenalleged,itshouldhavecometothe noticeoftheauthoritiesduringhiscourseofservice,andnotafter hehadattainedtheageofsuperannuationaftertheexpiryofthe date mentioned in the service book which was based on the affidavitoftherespondent.Tothecontrary,noneoftheofficials responsiblehadnoticedthisduringhisserviceperiod,evenduring histimeofpromotionswhentheservicebookwasrequiredtobe inspectedbytheofficials.Therefore,itclearlypointsouttothe gross negligence and lapses on the part of the authorities concernedandinourview,therespondentcannotbeheld responsibletoworkbeyondhisdateofbirthasmentionedinthe matriculationcertificatewhenadmittedlyintheservicebookafter theaffidavit,someotherdateofbirthwasalsoevident.
19. ItisnotneededforthisCourttoverifytheveracityofthe statementsmadebytheparties.Ifatalltherespondententered the second date of birth at a subsequent period of time, the authorities concerned should have detected it and there should havebeenadetailedenquirytodeterminewhethertherespondent was responsible for the same. It has been held in a catena of judicialpronouncementsthatevenifbymistake,higherpayscale wasgiventotheemployee,withouttherebeingmisrepresentation orfraud,norecoverycanbeeffectedfromtheretiralduesinthe monetarybenefitavailabletotheemployee.
23. Withoutgoingintothequestionwhethertheappellantwas justified after completion of two years from the actual date of retirementtodeducttwoyears'salaryandotheremolumentspaid to the respondent, we may say that since the respondent had workedduringthatperiodwithoutraisinganyobjectionfromthe sideoftheappellantandtheappellanthadgotworksdonebythe respondent,wedonotthinkthatitwasproperatthisstageto allowdeductionfromhisretiralbenefits,theamountreceivedby himassalary,afterhisactualdateofretirement.
24. Considering the fact that there was no allegation of misrepresentationorfraud,whichcouldbeattributedtothe 11 respondent and considering the fact that the appellant had allowedtherespondenttoworkandgotworksdonebyhimand paidsalary,itwouldbeunfairatthisstagetodeductthesaid amountofsalarypaidtohim.Accordingly,weareinagreement withtheDivisionBenchdecision thatsincetherespondentwas allowed to work and was paid salary for his work during the period of twoyearsafter his actualdateof retirement without raisinganyobjectionwhatsoever,nodeductioncouldbemadefor thatperiodfromtheretiralduesoftherespondent."
(Emphasissupplied) (xix) ThisCourtinthecaseofRamchandraSinghv.StateofJharkhand &ors.,asreportedin2009(3)JCR455hasalsotakenintoconsideration theratiolaiddowninthecaseof[ENTITY](supra). (xx) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of [PRECEDENT] especiallyinparagraphnos.57,58,59,60and61, whichreadasunder:
"57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief againstrecoveryofexcesspaymentofemoluments/allowancesif
(a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentationorfraudonthepartoftheemployee,and(b)if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrongprincipleforcalculatingthepay/allowanceoronthebasis ofaparticularinterpretationofrule/order,whichissubsequently foundtobeerroneous.
58. Thereliefagainstrecoveryisgrantedbycourtsnotbecauseof any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretiontorelievetheemployeesfromthehardshipthatwillbe causedifrecoveryisordered.But,ifinagivencase,itisproved thattheemployeehadknowledgethatthepaymentreceivedwas inexcessofwhatwasdueorwronglypaid,orincaseswherethe error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courtsmay,onthefactsandcircumstancesofanyparticularcase, orderforrecoveryoftheamountpaidinexcess.
59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellantteachers was notbecause of anymisrepresentation or fraudontheirpartandtheappellantsalsohadnoknowledgethat theamountthatwasbeingpaidtothemwasmorethanwhatthey wereentitledto.Itwouldnotbeoutofplacetomentionherethat the Finance Department had, in its counteraffidavit, admitted thatitwasabonafidemistakeontheirpart.Theexcesspayment madewastheresultofwronginterpretationoftheRulethatwas applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible.Rather,thewholeconfusionwasbecauseofinaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the GovernmentofBihar.Learnedcounselappearingonbehalfofthe appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries haveeitherretiredorareonthevergeofit.Keepinginviewthe peculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthecaseathandandtoavoid anyhardshiptotheappellantteachers,weareoftheviewthatno recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellantteachersshouldbemade.
60. Learnedcounselalsosubmittedthatpriortotheinterimorder passedbythisCourton742003inthespecialleavepetitions, wherebytheorderofrecoverypassedbytheDivisionBenchofthe High Court was stayed, some instalments/amount had already beenrecoveredfromsomeoftheteachers.Sincewehavedirected thatnorecoveryoftheexcessamountbemadefromtheappellant teachersandinordertomaintainparity,itwouldbeinthefitness of things that the amount that has been recovered from the teachersshouldberefundedtothem.
61. Intheresult,theappealsareallowedinpart;theimpugned judgmentsofarasitrelatestothedirectiongivenforrecoveryof theamountthathasbeenpaidinexcesstotheappellantteachers issetasideandthatpartoftheimpugnedjudgmentwherebyithas beenheldbytheDivisionBenchthattheamendedprovisionsofFR 22Cwouldapplytotheappellantteachersisupheld. Wedirect thatnorecoveryoftheexcessamount,thathasbeenpaidtothe teachers of secondary schools, be made, irrespective of the fact whethertheyhavemovedthisCourtornot.Wealsodirectthatthe amountthathasbeenrecoveredfromsomeoftheteachers,after theimpugnedjudgmentwaspassedbytheHighCourt,irrespective ofthefactwhethertheyhavemovedthisCourtornot,berefunded tothemwithinthreemonthsfromthedateofreceiptofcopyof thisjudgment."
(Emphasissupplied) (xxi) Ithas been heldbythe Hon'bleSupremeCourtincaseof [PRECEDENT] especiallyinparagraphnos.4&5,whichreadasunder: "4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the State authorities had allowed the appellanttoworkforabout10yearsandpaidthesalaryatthe enhancedrate,inwhichtheappellanthadnoroletoplayexcept thathehadgivenanundertakingtotheauthoritiesthatinthe eventhisfirsttimeboundpromotionwascancelled,inthatcase, hewouldbeboundtorefundthesame.
5. Having considered the fact that the appellant was only a ClassIVemployeeintheStateofBiharandalmostanilliterate person and did not know the implications of giving such undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount beingnotsoexcessive,inparticularRs1,01,529.50,outofwhich certainamounthasalreadybeenrecoveredfromthesalaryofthe appellant by the State authorities, we are of the view that a lenientviewshouldbetakenandtheamountalreadypaidbythe Stateauthoritiestotheappellantshallnotberecovered.However, whateveramountthathasalreadybeenrecovered,shallnotbe paidbacktotheappellant."
(Emphasissupplied) Inviewoftheaforesaiddecisions,itappearsthatevenifthesalary ispaidbymistakebytherespondentauthoritytoitsemployee,thesame cannot be recovered, especially when the employee has already been retired.Theemployeeisneverfetchingsalary/wagesonhisown.Salary billistobeprepared.Thereafter,itistobesanctionedbyhighranking 13 officers.Thereaftersalaryistobepaidtotheconcernemployee.Mistake in calculation of salary,if any,lies onthe partofthe respondents.No action has been taken by the respondentBoard against its own employees,whoarehighrankingofficersandwhohavedonethemistake andsanctionedthebillsofsalary.
(xxii) IherebyquashandsetasidetheorderatAnnexure2dated12th March, 2008 to the extent to which this order deducts the amount of Rs.71,820/fromtheamountofgratuity,legallypayabletothepetitioner. Thus,withoutanydeduction,theamountofgratuitywillbepaidtothe petitioner.I also, hereby,quashandset aside the order at Annexure3 dated11th July,2006andtheorderatAnnexure3/1dated11th August, 2006 and the amount, which is already deducted by virtue of these orders,shallberefundedtothepetitionerwithinaperiodoftwoweeks fromthedateofreceiptofacopyoftheorderofthisCourt,failingwhich, itwillberefundedtothepetitionerwiththeSimpleInterestattherateof 5%perannumfromthedateonwhichtheamountisdeducted,tillthe actualpaymentismadeandtheamountofinterestwillbedeductedfrom thesalaryoftheerringofficer(s).Initially,amountofinterestwillbepaid by the respondentJharkhand State Electricity Board and, thereafter, it will be deducted from the salaryof the erring officer(s), after holding necessaryinquiry.
5. Thiswritpetitionis,hereby,allowedwithacostofRs.10,000/(Rupees tenthousandonly),whichwillbegiventothepetitionerbytherespondents, withinaperiodoftwoweeksfromthedateofreceiptofacopyoftheorderof thisCourt.
([ENTITY],J.) Ajay