Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. KARNIK, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Maria Aura Pereira, w/o Cleto G. Pereira – Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Administration High Court of Bombayat Goa, Penha De Franca, Porvorim, Bardez Goa and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 616 Of 2024
Decided On : 03-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr Laban Carvalho, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Neha Shirodkar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr Vinod Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 2 through VC.

Recovery of excess payments made to employees is permissible if an undertaking was signed, regardless of the employee's class, unless undue hardship is demonstrated.

Headnote:
(A) Maharashtra General Provident Fund Rules, 1998 - Rule 134-A - Recovery of excess payment - Petitioner sought to quash recovery of Rs.2,80,000/- received as pensionary benefits after voluntary retirement - Court held that recovery is permissible as the petitioner executed an undertaking to refund excess payments. (Paras 13, 20, 25)

(B) Legal principles - Recovery of excess payments made to employees is permissible unless it results in undue hardship, particularly for lower-grade employees - The petitioner, being a Class I employee, does not fall under the protective ambit of Rafiq Masih ruling. (Paras 16, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Class I employee, received excess payment of Rs.2,80,000/- after retirement, which was not adjusted due to administrative oversight. The petitioner contended that the recovery was unjust as it was not her fault.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had executed an undertaking to refund excess payments and thus, recovery was justified.

Issues: Whether the recovery of excess payment from a Class I employee post-retirement is permissible under the rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner, having signed an undertaking, is bound to refund the excess amount, and the recovery does not constitute undue hardship.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(PER NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith at the request and consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks direction to quash the letter dated 24.5.2024 accompanied by a letter dated 24.02.2024 by the Respondents, calling upon the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty thousand only) which was received by her as pensionary benefits under the head, General Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as “GPF”).

4. Briefly, the facts are that the Petitioner joined the service as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the District Court, North Goa, Panaji on 1.9.1991 and thereafter she was appointed as Stenographer (Higher Grade) in the High Court of Bombay at Goa by letter of appointment dated 24.06.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner served as a Personal Assistant to the Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Goa from 22.08.2019 till her voluntary retirement on 7.12.2021. The pay-scale associated with the position of Personal Assistant to the Judge of the High Court is as per the 7th pay commission matrix-level 10.

5. The petitioner received a letter dated 24.05.2024 from the High Court of Bombay at Goa, along with another letter dated 24.2.2024 from the Office of the Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement)-I, Maharashtra, instructing the Registry to recover an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty thousand only) from the petitioner, which was the amount that was received by the petitioner as pensionary benefits under the head, GPF. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.6.2024 to respondent No. 1. However, the said representation has not been decided as of yet. The petitioner asserts that the recovery of money sought by the respondents is a consequence of the fault of the respondents, therefore, it cannot be claimed from the petitioner. Hence this petition.

6. Respondent no.1 in their reply stated that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement and the same was duly accepted. The petitioner was granted approval under Rule 16(E) of the Maharashtra General Provident Fund Rules, 1998, to withdraw a non-refundable sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) from her GPF account to meet her expenses in connection with the purchase of a motor- vehicle. The said sanction was communicated to the petitioner vide sanction order dated 24.11.2020. Vide Form VIII-A dated 7.12.2021, the petitioner sought payment of the amount standing to her credit in the General Provident Fund. The application was forwarded to respondent No.2 for action and payment. Respondent no.2 duly paid the petitioner the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs only) from her General Provident Fund. Respondent no.2 intimated respondent no.1 vide letter dated 20.2.2024, that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) was sanctioned to the petitioner towards withdrawal of a non-refundable amount from GPF account in December 2020 and the same was not adjusted when the final GPF payment of Rs.20,70,517/- (Rupees twenty lakhs seventy thousand and five hundred and seventeen only) was made. Respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 24.5.2024, forwarded the letter dated 20.2.2024 received from respondent no. 2 to the petitioner, informing her that a recovery of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty thousand only) was to be effected and requested her to deposit the specified amount into the account details provided in the letter.

7. In response to the letter dated 24.05.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.06.2024 to respondent no.1, urging that the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty thousand only) should not be recovered, relying in the decision in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. Respondent no.2 was informed about the representation dated 18.06.2024 made by the petitioner