THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF
KARDAK ETE, J.
Kamaleswar Rajbonshi S/o Late Madan Rajbonshi - Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of
WP(C)/4926/2023
Decided On :
(A) Assam Police Act - Recovery of salary - The petitioner challenged the recovery of Rs. 20,91,958/- for overstay in service due to incorrect recording of date of birth - The petitioner was allowed to serve until 28.02.2017 based on a misrecorded date of birth - The court found no fault on the part of the petitioner and noted negligence on the part of the authorities in failing to correct the date of birth earlier. (Paras 2-24)
(B) Employment Law - Recovery of payments - The court held that recovery of salary for the period of overstay is impermissible where no fraud or misrepresentation is established, and the employee was allowed to work and receive salary without objection from the employer. (Paras 18-24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a police officer, was incorrectly recorded as having a date of birth of 17.02.1957 instead of 27.04.1954, leading to a wrongful recovery of salary after retirement.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the recovery order, stating it would be unfair to deduct the amount paid to the petitioner during the overstay period.
Issues: The main issue was whether the recovery of salary for overstay was justified given the incorrect recording of the date of birth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the overstay due to the authorities' negligence in not correcting the date of birth earlier.
Result: The recovery order was quashed, and the petitioner’s retirement date was confirmed as 30.04.2014.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and Mr. B. Chakaraborty, learned standing counsel, Accountant General, for respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent Nos. 3 and 11.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned letter dated 01.03.2023, issued by the Sr. Accounts Officer (A&E), Assam, whereby, an amount of Rs. 20,91,958/-(Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight only) is sought to be recovered from the petitioner for the period from 30.04.2014 to 28.02.2017 of the pay and allowances of the petitioner and other actions of respondent authorities in seeking recovery of the pay and allowances from the arrear and future relief from the petitioner on account of over stay in service.
3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Dispatch Rider in Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO) on 16.11.1979. Accordingly, he joined his service as Dispatch Rider and submitted his HSLC passed certificate before the concerned authority as proof of his date of birth. The date of birth in fact as per certificate is 27.04.1954. The respondent authorities recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 17.02.1957 in his service book, thereby the petitioner had to retire on 28.02.2017. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Operator) in the year 1991 then to Sub-Inspector (Operator) in the year 2016.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to wrong entry of his date of birth in service book, the concerned authority allowed him to render his services till 28.02.2017. However, only after his retirement, when he submitted the pension papers before the concerned authority, the mistake is said have been found by the respondent authorities. The Superintendent of Police, corrected the said mistake vide order dated 22.07.2019 after 2 years of his retirement. It is stated in the said order that the date of retirement is corrected as 30.04.2014 instead of 28.02.2017 and as such his overdraw salary will be deducted from pensionary benefits.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 22.07.2019, the Sr. Accounts Officer in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam, issued the impugned letter dated 01.03.2023 for recovery of Rs. 20,91,958/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight only) from arrear and future relief by showing the total recovery to be made as Rs. 26,07,748/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Eight) only.
6. Mr. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that due to wrong entry of the date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent authorities in the service book, the petitioner had actually worked in the service as Sub-Inspector (Operator) till 28.02.2017. It is only in the year 2019, the respondent authorities allegedly detected the inadvertent mistake of wrong recording of the date of birth of the petitioner after having been allowed him to serve up to 2017, i.e. after 2 years of his retirement.
7. Mr. Khanikar, learned counsel, submits that since the petitioner has submitted his HSLC examination certificate before the concerned authorities at the time of his joining in the service which is recorded as 27.04.1954, the recording of date of birth 17.02.1957 is due to fault of the respondent authorities and not of the petitioner. There is no fraud or manipulation on the part of the petitioner in recording his date of birth in service book. Therefore, he submits that the action of the respondent authorities in seeking recovery of Rs. 20,91,958/ (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight only) from the arrear benefits and future relief of the petitioner cannot be made as the petitioner has already served in the Department for about 2 years and 10 months 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 of excess payments is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, especially when no fraud is involved.
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 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.
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 excess payments made without employee fault is impermissible, especially if it causes hardship.
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.
Service - Retirement benefits - Not entitled for - Petitioner appears to be not bona-fide and a wrong doer cannot claim the privilege of his own wrongful conduct and it will be wholly unjustified one....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.