Manbhanjan Bhoi v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2079 of 2015 • Manbhanjan Bhoi S/o Late Sashibhushan Bhoi, aged about 64 years, (Retd. forest guard) R/o Ward No. 13, Saraipali, Mahalpara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, The Secretary, Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

2. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Mahasamund DistrictMahasamund (C.G.)

3. Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 17/06/2015 1.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order Annexure P-1, whereby a sum of Rs.55,079/-has been recovered from him, as the same was found to be paid in excess to him, then for what he was entitled. The amount was not paid to the petitioner in one go, but the same was paid to him on and from 1-1-1986 on account of wrong fixation of his pay-scale. Thus, the petitioner was paid a very small amount per month, which got

accumulated to reach up to the figure of 55,079/- on the date when the show-cause notice was issued to him for recovery of that amount. 3.

The petitioner retired as Forest Guard, Department of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarh in December 2010. The recovery was made from him in June, 2009 i.e. about 1 & 1⁄2 year back from the date of retirement. Although the amount has not been recovered after retirement, but the same was made at the fag end of the service.

4.

Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others1, which has been followed by this court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others2, and Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others3, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recovery of excess payment cannot be made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when payment has not been obtained by him by committing fraud or misrepresentation. 5.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the impugned recovery proceeding was initiated in the month of October, 2005 whereas the present petition was filed on 17-10-2013 and, as such, the same suffers from unexplained delay and laches.

6.

Learned State counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.4 to argue that recovery of excess payment of public money paid to an employee has to be made as the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is not applicable to such situation. According to the learned State Counsel, any amount paid/ received without authority of law can always be 11995 Supp (1) SCC 18 22006 (1) MPHT 105 32010 (3) CGLJ 400 42012 AIR SCW 4742

recovered.

7.

In the matter Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) V. Government of India and others5, the Supreme Court has held that restraining recovery back of excess payment is granted by the courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion, to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented with further observation that a Government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, and relief was granted in that behalf. 8.

In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others6, the Supreme Court restrained the department from recovery of excess amount paid by holding thus :

"Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bonafide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made."

5 [(2006) 11 SCC 709] : (2006 AIR SCW 5252) 6[(2009) 3 SCC 475] : (2009 AIR SCW 1871)

9.

While holding in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) that any amount paid/ received without authority of law can always be recovered and the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is not applicable in such situation, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the exceptions to the rule and the exceptions mentioned in the Judgment of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra) and Syed Abdul Quadir (supra) has been referred with approval. One of the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) is that where the beneficiary of excess payment has either retired or is on the verge of it, to avoid any hardship to such employees/teachers, the recovery was quashed. 10.

In an extremely recent case, in the matter of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher)7, the Supreme Court has taken a similar view holding thus in para 7:- "7.In Chandi Prasad Uniyal case, a specific issue was raised and canvassed. The issue was whether the appellant therein can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The Court after taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that the excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered.

While holding so this Court observed at paras 14 and 16 as under: (SCC p. 423) "14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as 'taxpayers' money' which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee.

arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.

* * *

16. The appellants in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However, we order that excess payment made be recovered from the appellant's salary in twelve equal monthly instalments........"

11.

Thus, in Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (supra), also the Supreme Court did not differ with the earlier view in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra) and Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) that any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of external hardships. Paras 10 & 11 of Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- "10. Article 136 of the Constitution of India, confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. Article 136 is a special jurisdiction and can be best described in the words of this Court in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai8, (SCC p.403, para 14), " 14....It is a residuary power, it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limits, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself".

11. Article 136 of the Constitution of India was legislatively intended to be exercised by the Highest Court of the land, with scrupulous adherence to the settled judicial principle well established by precedents in our jurisprudence. Article 136 of the Constitution is a corrective jurisdiction that vests a discretion in the Supreme Court to settle the law 8(2003) 12 SCC 395

clear and as forthrightly forwarded in Union of India v. Karnail Singh9, it makes the law operational to make it a binding precedent for the future instead of keeping it vague. In short, it declares the law, as under Article 141 of the Constitution."

12.

In the present case also the steps for recovery of excess payment from the petitioner was initiated at the fag end of his service. 13.

Since the petitioner was not working on any gazetted post and was not a highly paid employee, the present case squarely fall within the exception carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Syed Abdul Qadir (Supra) and Chandi Prasad Uniyal (Supra). 14.

For the foregoing, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned recovery of Rs.55,079/- from the petitioner. The respondents shall refund the amount to the petitioner, however, the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest.

15.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ashu 9(1995) 2 SCC 728