Dhanpati v. State Of Haryana And Others
!!
"
#$ % &'
() *+ ), - * !
./
3.( )( ( *)/ 5)/-67(() *+ /8 *(3)/-
)-.*)(- !
9 : 4
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
# :'
!
#
$ %&'&(()*
, -
.
! "
"4
& -
# #
+
+
5
-
+ #.
,( (, ,((&
-
+
+
$ ,%(!)*
$ 7!(7)*
(! (! ,((7 + # ,, (, ,(!&
$ &'88)* +
9
,(,&
!(
3
+
+ 3 $*6)6 :
"
+ "
#
$
#$%&&$'(
$ !)* $# +$
* "(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently
held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess." %
3
# ,, (, ,(!&
+
'
, &
#.
"4
+ #.
- &
* "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.;
<
!(
5
!,
, &
#$%&&$' .
/$ 01
203
41 # 1 " (
/ !!
+ # #
+
+
<
!,
+
#
+.
#.
!& "
= $ &'88)*
!6 #
+
./
# 7 7 7'
harsha
> .
)
)? > +
)?