Dalip Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS.
! !"#$#%& ' ( )#*+#%,- ! # #%!( .!($/$ + ! /%0 1 %2 -!($ !$*%2!% $
!
!" #$ !#%& '( )*+ , !" %% !#%& '( ) -+
,
(
/ / , ,0 1 *% #* !#%&
/
, / / ( . #% #- !#%- *% #* !#%&
/ /
2 (
( )- /
.
4 .
5.
.
/
)( .
//
67
/
"# $%&'
( "
). #*
+
+
!
,- ./01 0!
- 021
9 / . , .
/ / #% #% !#%% #% #& !#%% , ( .
/ )( . (
/. .
5 ,
67
/ #*
%3!
%!
)( 3 .
%!
)
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:!
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class!III and Class!IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
*% #* !#%& .
)( / , #% #% !#%% , .
, #% #& !#%% , .
)( )(
:
.
,, %!
67
/ #*
%3!- //
;
.
)
, / .
. .
$ / // #! %% !#%& / / !< #- !#%$ , %# #% !#%$
4 / ./ , .
.
//
/
. / . ./
=
+ %2- 4 .$ + ! /%0 1 %2 -!($5 66
+37 , .
.
,
) "Since a government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in
'
terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months front the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement." 8
).
"# 4- ./05 06!
7 !
6115 ,
.
+-!!8 9$" $! $/*( ) "In my opinion, even if the assertion made in the written statement is presumed to be correct it would not disentitle the petitioner for claiming interest. The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it." ; .
. ./
=
+ %2- 4 9$" $! $/*(
%2
%3!- .
> &?
/
/ 4 /
, / .
, /
, /
: ; 5
+:++
kanchan
√ Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No √ Whether reportable : Yes/No