The main legal point established in the judgment is that no recoveries should be ordered or enforced after the retirement of employees if the excess payment was due to unintentional mistakes and the employees were not guilty of furnishing incorrect information or fraud.

Headnote:
Mandamus - Recovery of Excess Payment - State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, AIR 2015 SC 696 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, a retired Assistant Teacher, sought a writ of Mandamus to withdraw the recovery of an alleged excess payment made to her by the Directorate of Accounts. The recovery was made without complying with the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the recovery of the alleged excess payment was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala. The court held that no recoveries should be ordered or enforced after the retirement of employees if the excess payment was due to unintentional mistakes and the employees were not guilty of furnishing incorrect information or fraud.
Issues: The issues involved the recovery of an alleged excess payment made to the Petitioner and the failure to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala to conclude that the recovery of the alleged excess payment was not justified and was in breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the recovered amount to the Petitioner within 3 months, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum if not paid within the stipulated time.

JUDGMENT

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr. Vithal Naik for the Petitioner and Mr. D.J. Pangam, learned Advocate General, who appears along with Mr. Suhas Parab, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Petition, which reads as follows:

"Issue a writ of Mandamus or writ in nature of the Mandamus directing Respondent No. 03 to forthwith withdraw the Letter dtd. 13/12/2021 outwarded on 13/01/2022 bearing Ref. No. DA/PA-I/PENS(06)/2021-2022/356 and the consequential correspondence issued by the Directorate of Accounts directing the recovery of an excess amount paid to the Petitioner and further direct the Respondent No. 03 to release the amount of Rs.3, 12, 977.00. (Three Lakhs Twelve Thousands Nine Hundred and Seventy Seven only), in favour of the Petitioner."

4. The Petitioner was appointed Assistant Teacher in the Government High School, Bicholim, on 9/7/1987. After that, the Petitioner was granted the senior scale on 5/11/1999 and the selection scale on 20/4/2014. The Petitioner was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of Teacher Grade I with effect from 7/6/2013. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade I in level 8 of the pay matrix of the Seventh Pay Commission scales.

5. Since the Petitioner was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 28/2/2022, her pension papers and service book were forwarded to the Directorate of Accounts well in advance on 13/12/2021. The Directorate of Accounts returned the pension papers and the service book with the endorsement that some excess payment was made to the Petitioner.

6. Upon getting wind of the above endorsement and apprehending difficulties in releasing her retiral benefits, the Petitioner addressed a representation dtd. 26/02/2022 protesting the endorsement of any alleged excess payment. In any case, the Petitioner pointed out that since she was due to retire on 28/2/2022, no recoveries could be made.

7. The Petitioner has pleaded that by order dtd. 20/1/2022, the order granting the selection scale to the Petitioner was revised without notice or minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. Possibly, it is based on this order that the Directorate of Accounts made the endorsement about the recovery of the alleged excess payment.

8. The Petitioner was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. on 28/2/2022. However, on 14/3/2022, the Petitioner was re-employed in the same post until the end of the academic year, i.e. 30/4/2022.

9. On 17/8/2022, the Respondents recovered the alleged excess payment made to the Petitioner amounting to Rs.3, 12, 977.00. Again, this was without even complying with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The amount was immediately recovered from out-of-the-terminal benefits payable to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's representation dtd. 12/11/2022 was not responded to, forcing the Petitioner to institute the present Petition on 20/12/2022.

10. Apart from the failure to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play, we think that the Respondents' action is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, AIR 2015 SC 696 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. Both these decisions hold that where monetary benefits were given to the employees in excess of their entitlement due to unintentional mistakes committed by the concerned competent authorities in determining the emoluments payable to them, and the employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information/misrepresentation/fraud, which had led the concerned competent authorities to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees, no recoveries must be ordered or enforced after the retirement of such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document