Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Sukhalata Phukan Gogoi W/o- Shri Naren Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam, Education (Higher) Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. P Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel representing the Higher Education Department and Mr. SK Medhi, learned standing counsel for the Accountant General (A&E)
2. The petitioner who retired as Principal from Murkong Selek College, Jonai as Lecturer on 31.12.2018 has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the impugned action of recovery of financial benefit already made to the petitioner on account of overstay in service from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. The respondent authorities concerned have recovered/deducted an amount of Rs. 21,27,846/- from her pension and other benefits. The learned counsel submits that the overstay in service is not the fault of the petitioner and the petitioner was never informed at any point of time that her date of birth was wrongly recorded in her Service Book and therefore, such being the position, the recovery from her pension and other benefits cannot be done and the same should be refunded back to her. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, reported in
The petitioner's silence regarding the wrong date of birth did not amount to fraud, and the recovery of salary for the period of overstay was interfered with.
Recovery of salary for overstay is impermissible where no fraud is established, and the employee was allowed to work without objection from the employer.
Recovery from pensionary benefits is impermissible when the employee has rendered service during the overstayed period without prior notice of the excess payments to be recovered.
Recovery from the salaries for the period of overstay was unjustified due to the petitioners' good faith service and the authorities' failure to detect discrepancies in their dates of birth.
Recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is impermissible when no fraud is established, and the employee worked without objection for an extended period.
Recovery of excess payments is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, especially when no fraud is involved.
Recovery of excess payments made without employee fault is impermissible, especially if it causes hardship.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
