Supreme Court
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:3) (cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:11) (cid:1) (cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:19) (cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1);(cid:28)(cid:1)<(cid:1)(cid:11)=(cid:1) 4(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:22)&(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:31)(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:6)"+(cid:6)"(cid:8)+(cid:8)(cid:6) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)""""(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) ((cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:24)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)"""(cid:29)(cid:22)(cid:24)’(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:24) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:13) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:11)(cid:31)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:31)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:10)"(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:31)(cid:1) (cid:28)!,-./(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:29)"(cid:1)01(cid:17)23(cid:2)/(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:11)(cid:30)! (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:30)!(cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:30)14 (cid:30)(cid:29)5(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) !(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:1)’(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)"(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:11)(cid:23)"(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:12)#(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:19) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:13)*(cid:1)4(cid:30)6*(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:27)"(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:12)7(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1) #(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:1) ’(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:1) ’(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:1) (cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:1) (cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1) 8(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:1) #(cid:22)#(cid:21)$%(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:23) (cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:22)&(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:24)’(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:13) (cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:1))(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:12))(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:27)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:15)(cid:13)&(cid:23)(cid:22)# #(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1) ’(cid:23)(cid:21)#(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:1) (cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:21)# (cid:21)#(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:1) &(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:1) (cid:2)%(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:15)&(cid:12)%(cid:1) (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:1) ((cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:13)(cid:12)&(cid:26)%(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:12)&(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:1) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:20) (cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:1) (cid:23)(cid:22)&(cid:21)9(cid:22)(cid:23)7(cid:1) )(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:20)*(cid:1) )(cid:19)(cid:15)&(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:16)*(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:10)"+:"(cid:8)++(cid:7)*(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:12)7(cid:22)(cid:20) (cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:1))(cid:19)(cid:15)%(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:20)#(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:1)’(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:13)"(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:8)"(cid:1) (cid:1) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in rt in Jogeshwar Sahoo and others vs. The Distr e District Judge, Cuttack and others others, SLP (C) No(s). 5918-2024, decided on 0 d on 04.04.2025, has held that the rec recovery of excess emoluments or allowances wances, disbursed as a consequence of nce of an erroneous computation of the same, ou e, ought not to be affected, such ind ch indulgence being granted as an equitable rel le relief, extended solely to allevia alleviate the hardship that might otherwise be be caused by such recovery, esp ry, especially to those retired, the relevant para t paras whereof read thus:- PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:1) our consideration is not about the “7. The issue falling for our co tive promotion and the financial legality of the retrospective p ellants on 10.05.2017. The issue for benefit granted to the appellants ecovery of the amount extended to consideration is whether recove were in service is justified after the appellants while they were too without affording any to hat that their retirement and opportunity of hearing. 8. The law in this regard has b catena of judgments rendered tim State of Haryana, (1995) Supp Verma vs. Union of India, (1994 vs. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC Regional Jt. Director, (1997) 6 decision in the matter of Thoma & Ors., (2022) SCC online SC 5 9. This Court has consistently excess amount was not p misrepresentation or fraud on th such excess payment was made a wrong principle for calculating basis of a particular interpreta subsequently found to be errone emoluments or allowances are n such relief against the recovery the employee but in equity, exe provide relief to the employee f caused if the recovery is ordered 10. In Thomas Daniel (supra), paras 10, 11, 12 and 13: has been settled by this Court in ered time and again; Sahib Ram vs. ) Supp (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu , (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India 4 SCC 416 and V. Gangaram vs. 997) 6 SCC 139 and in a recent Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala e SC 536. stently taken the view that if the ot paid on account of any d on the part of the employee or if made by the employer by applying ulating the pay/allowance or on the rpretation of rule/order, which is roneous, such excess payments of s are not recoverable. It is held that overy is not because of any right of ty, exercising judicial discretion to oyee from the hardship that will be rdered. supra), this Court has held thus in educational “10. In Sahib Ram v. S restrained recovery of pay the upgraded pay sca construction of relevan concerned, without any m the employees. It was held “5. Admittedly the appe required circumstances the appella the relaxation. The Princi relaxation. Since the date had been paid his sal However, it is not on acco made by the appellant that scale was given to him made by the Principal fo be held to be at fault. U amount paid till date ma v. State of Haryana, this Court of payment which was given under y scale on account of wrong the authority elevant order by any misrepresentation on part of as held thus: e appellant does not possess the nal qualifications. Under the appellant would not be entitled to Principal erred in granting him the e date of relaxation, the appellant is salary on the revised scale. n account of any misrepresentation nt that the benefit of the higher pay him but by wrong construction pal for which the appellant cannot ault. Under the circumstances the may not be recovered from the PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:1) payment
Decision
ciple of equal pay for equal work to the scales prescribed by the ommission. The appeal is allowed rder as to costs.” kkara (Retd.) v. Government of considered an identical question as appellant. The principle o would not apply to the University Grants Commi partly without any order a 11. In Col. B.J. Akkara India2 this Court conside under: tion to be considered is whether “27. The last question t anted against the recovery of the relief should be granted made on account of the wrong excess payments made standing of the circular dated 7-6- interpretation/understandi s consistently granted relief against 1999. This Court has cons excess of excess wrong recovery of nces from an employee, if the emoluments/allowances s are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. following conditions are 995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC State of Haryana [1995 S Babu Verma v. Union of India (L&S) 248], Shyam Bab : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 ATC 121], Union of Ind C (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L& or [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC Regional Jt. Director [(19 (L&S) 1652]): (a) The excess payment w any misrepresentation or employee. yment was made by the employer (b) Such excess payment ong principle for calculating the by applying a wrong p on the basis of a particular t pay/allowance or on ule/order, which is subsequently interpretation of rule/ord found to be erroneous. 28. Such relief, restraini payment, is granted by co in the employees, but in e discretion to relieve the e that will be caused if r government servant, par rungs of service would sp receives for the upkeep of excess payment for a lon genuinely believing that subsequent action to reco cause undue hardship to behalf. But where the em the payment received was wrongly paid, or where corrected within a short ti will not grant relief agains straining back recovery of excess by courts not because of any right ut in equity, in exercise of judicial e the employees from the hardship d if recovery is implemented. A t, particularly one in the lower uld spend whatever emoluments he eep of his family. If he receives an a long period, he would spend it, that he is entitled to it. As any o recover the excess payment will ip to him, relief is granted in that the employee had knowledge that d was in excess of what was due or where the error is detected or hort time of wrong payment, courts against recovery. The matter being ment was not made on account of ion or fraud on the part of the PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5):(cid:5)(cid:1) in as by are the that wrong icial discretion, courts may on the in the realm of judicial nces of any particular case refuse to facts and circumstances of ainst recovery. grant such relief against re inciple, pensioners can also seek a 29. On the same principle rong payments should not be direction pensio a more pensioners recovered, sition when compared to in-service disadvantageous position ttempt to recover excess wrong employees. Any attempt use undue hardship to them. The payment would cause un guilty of any misrepresentation or petitioners are not guilty e excess payment. NPA was added fraud in regard to the exce r purposes of stepping up, due to a to minimum pay, for purp ding implementing understanding wrong re therefore of the view that the departments. We are the not recover any excess payments respondents shall not re sion in pursuance of the circular made towards pension i ll the issue of the clarificatory dated 7-6-1999 till the 2001. Insofar as any excess circular dated 11-9-200 ter the circular dated 11-9-2001, payment made after the n of India will be entitled to recover obviously the Union of In alidity of the said circular has been the excess as the validity ioners have been put on notice in upheld and as pensioners calculations earlier made.” regard to the wrong calcul l Qadir v. State of Bihar3 excess 12. In Syed Abdul Qadi t to be recovered which was made payment was sought to be achers on account of mistake and to the appellants-teachers n of prevailing Bihar Nationalised wrong interpretation of p (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. Secondary School (Servi ein contended that even if it were to The appellants therein con ppellants were not entitled to the be held that the appellan nal increment on promotion, the benefit of additional in uld not be recovered from them, it excess amount should no without any misrepresentation or having been paid withou The Court held that the appellants fraud on their part. The C sponsible in such a situation and cannot be held responsib ess payment should not be ordered, recovery of the excess pay the e the employee has subsequently especially when observed that in general parlance, retired. The court observ ted by courts where there exists no recovery is prohibited by r fraud on the part of the employee misrepresentation or fraud ess payment has been made by and when the excess p interpretation/understanding of a applying a wrong interp s held thus: Rule or Order. It was held the excess amount that has been “59. Undoubtedly, the e nt teachers was not because of any paid to the appellant teac or fraud on their part and the misrepresentation or fra no knowledge that the amount that appellants also had no kn PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:1) hem was more than what they were not be out of place to mention here Department had, in its counter- that it was a bona fide mistake on ss payment made was the result of n of the Rule that was applicable to the appellants cannot be held , the whole confusion was because nce and carelessness of the officials Government of Bihar. Learned on behalf of the appellant teachers rity of the beneficiaries have either e verge of it. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case at hand rdship to the appellant teachers, we no recovery of the amount that has to the appellant teachers should be was being paid to them w entitled to. It would not be that the Finance Depar affidavit, admitted that it their part. The excess pay wrong interpretation of th them, for which the responsible. Rather, the w of inaction, negligence an concerned of the Gove counsel appearing on beh submitted that majority of retired or are on the verg peculiar facts and circum and to avoid any hardship are of the view that no rec been paid in excess to the made.” 13. In State of Punjab v. 334 wherein this court order passed by the Sta gains wrongly extended t in excess of their entitle misrepresentation at the Court considered situatio employee, if recovery is employer and disallowed beneficiary employees fro thus: wo parties, if a determination is “8. As between two pa of the party, which is the weaker of rendered in favour of the ny serious detriment to the other the two, without any ser welfare State), the issue resolved (which is truly a welfar nance with the concept of justice, would be in consonance the citizens of India, even in the which is assured to the c onstitution of India. The right to Preamble of the Constitu ed by the employer, will have to be recover being pursued by e effect of the recovery on the compared, with the effe d. If the effect of the recovery from employee concerned. If th erned would be, more unfair, more the employee concerned w roper, and more unwarranted, than wrongful, more improper, ight of the employer to recover the the corresponding right of uld be iniquitous and arbitrary, to amount, then it would be In such a situation, the employee's effect the recovery. In suc right would outbalance, an nce, and therefore eclipse, the right ecover. of the employer to recover Xxxxxxxxx jab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC court examined the validity of an he State to recover the monetary nded to the beneficiary employees entitlements without any fault or t the behest of the recipient. This ituations of hardship caused to an ery is directed to reimburse the llowed the same, exempting the ees from such recovery. It was held PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)>(cid:5)(cid:1) ible to postulate all situations of uld govern employees on the issue payments have mistakenly been , in excess of their entitlement. based on the decisions referred to ay, as a ready reference, summarise ituations, wherein recoveries by the e impermissible in law: the employees belonging to Class ervice (or Group C and Group D the retired employees, or the due to retire within one year, of the the employees, when the excess made for a period in excess of five der of recovery is issued. cases where an employee has equired to discharge duties of a has been paid accordingly, even ve rightfully been required to work 18. It is not possible to hardship which would go of recovery, where paym made by the employer, in Be that as it may, based hereinabove, we may, as a the following few situatio employers, would be impe (i) Recovery from the em III and Class IV service service). (ii) Recovery from the employees who are due to order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the e payment has been made f years, before the order of (iv) Recovery in cases wrongfully been require higher post, and has be though he should have rig against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, w conclusion, that recovery would be iniquitous or h extent, as would far outw the employer's right to rec ase, where the court arrives at the overy if made from the employee, s or harsh or arbitrary to such an r outweigh the equitable balance of t to recover.” 11. In the case at hand, the app post of Stenographers when the made to them. It is not reflec payment was made to the appell or misrepresentation by them. I benefit was extended to the app Cuttack, the same was subseq High Court which resulted i recovery. It is also not in disput in the year 2017 whereas the r year 2023. However, in the me retired in the year 2020. It is a the appellants were not afforded before issuing the order of reco superannuated on a ministerial admittedly not holding any gaz the principle enunciated by this judgment, the recovery is found he appellants were working on the en the subject illegal payment was reflected in the record that such appellants on account of any fraud hem. It seems, when the financial he appellants by the District Judge, subsequently not approved by the lted in the subsequent order of dispute that the payment was made s the recovery was directed in the he meanwhile, the appellants have It is also an admitted position that fforded any opportunity of hearing of recovery. The appellants having isterial post of Stenographer were ny gazetted post as such applying by this Court in the above quoted found unsustainable. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)++(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)@(cid:5)(cid:1) 12. For the aforestated, we are o appeal deserves to be allowed. appeal and set aside the order consequence the orders dated 12 which the appellants were dir drawn arrears are set aside. are of the considered view that the lowed. Accordingly, we allow the order of the High Court and in ated 12.09.2023 and 08.09.2023 by re directed to deposit the excess 3. Learned State counsel was not a s not able to demonstrate from the written statem statement that the petitioners receive eceived the amount by making any misrepresenta resentation or concealment of fact f facts and also draw out any distinctive as tive aspects in the aforementioned ju ned judgment or cite any contrary law, in view ew of which, the present petition etition is partly allowed insofar as recovery orde ry ordered is concerned.(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:10)(cid:6)"+(cid:6)"(cid:8)+(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:1) ’(cid:12)(cid:23)9(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:1)?(cid:26)#(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:1) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:24)’(cid:22)(cid:12)?(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:18)$(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:31)(cid:1)5(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:1)$(cid:1)!(cid:21)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:31)(cid:1)(cid:1)5(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:1)$(cid:1)!(cid:21)(cid:1) (cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:22)’(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:27)%(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.