Point of Law: Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.Sudha, J.

This intra court appeal is against the judgment dated 10/06/2022 in W.P.(C) No.4952/2021. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein, the respondents in the writ petition. The parties in this appeal and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner, working as Watchman (Higher Grade) in SAS SNDP Yogam College, Konni, Pathanamthitta, retired on 31/05/2016 on attainment of the age of superannuation. The original pension sanctioned to the petitioner with effect from 01/06/2016 is Rs. 4500/-, which on 21/09/2017 was revised to Rs. 8928/-. At present the petitioner is receiving a monthly pension of Rs.16,460/-. On 08/02/2021, the petitioner was called to the office of the 3rd respondent and was informed that an amount of Rs.3,58,364/-had been paid in excess to him due to certain mistakes that had crept in while computing his pension and that the 3rd respondent is proposing to recover the excess amount disbursed from his pension. The meager amounts received by the petitioner as pension has been spent by him and therefore it would be arbitrary unreasonable, unjustified as well as capricious to recover any amount for no fault on his part, the mistake being solely on the part of the respondents. As the 3rd respondent intends to initiate recovery, the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus barring the respondents from recovering any amount(s) from the pension payable to the petitioner.

3. The 3rd respondent, the Sub Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury Office, Mallapally, Pathanamthitta has filed a counter affidavit in which it is contended that the petitioner after the commutation of his pension is entitled to only an amount of Rs.5357/-as monthly pension. However, due to a mistake in the computation of his pension, DA @ of 121% of the basic pension was disbursed instead of the 20% DA to which he is entitled to. As a result of this incorrect computation, the petitioner has been wrongly paid pension in excess of the pension actually due to him. This excess payment Rs. 9,017/-per month continued for some time before the same was noticed and corrected. The total amount paid in excess, amounts to Rs.3,58,364/-. Though excess pension has been paid to the petitioner by mistake, the money belongs to the exchequer and it is an expense from the consolidated fund of the Government and hence needs to be recovered from the petitioner.

3.1. The 3rd respondent, after hearing the petitioner and taking into account the circumstances, has taken a lenient view and permitted the petitioner recovery @ Rs.864/-per month in 413 installments, which would not be a heavy burden on him. The petitioner was well aware of the excess amount that was being paid as pension. However, he never brought the same to the notice of the authorities concerned. The Government anticipating such situations and to prevent any loss to the public exchequer has introduced the practice of obtaining a statutory undertaking from every pensioner before the disbursement of the initial pension on superannuation. On the basis of the said Government order, the petitioner has also voluntarily submitted an undertaking by which he has agreed to repay any excess amount, if any, received by him. That being the position, the petitioner cannot now contend that the amounts which have been mistakenly paid to him cannot be recovered from him, contends the 3rd respondent.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner, in the event of establishing that the petitioner has in fact given an undertaking as contended by them. It was also clarified that such action would be initiated only after properly notifying the petitioner and hearing him. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

5. Heard Sri. P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Ms.Siny M.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A