The court ruled that arbitrary recovery of excess pay is barred after eight years without evidence of wrongdoing, following established principles under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

This matter has been assigned to this Bench by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and that is how this matter is listed before this Court.

2. Heard Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prahsant Pallav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

3. Prayer in this petition is made for declaration that communication dated 02.06.2020 sent in the form of an email and the letter13.01.2020 both are sequels to the observations of the respondent no.5 vide their impugned report dated 06.02.2015 contained in annxure-22 series and subsequent reports, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further prayer is made that after such declaration the communications contained in annexure-20, 22 and 23 series may kindly be quashed and further prayer is made to restore the status of the petitioner.

4. Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 is an academic institution that is the creature of legislation being the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017 which is operated under the aegis of the Ministry of Human Resource Development of the Union of India. She submits that on 12^th May 2010 by a public advertisement in a national newspaper of prominence namely, the Ascent, the Time of India, the authorities of the respondent no.1 notified vacancies for the post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in various areas of academics (including the areas of Economics and Public Policy, to which the petitioner applied) in the scale of INR 37400-67000+ Academic Grade Pay of INR 9500 contained in annexure-1. She further submits that the petitioner submitted his application against the aforesaid advertisement and after due scrutiny of his credential followed by a rigorous selection procedure conducted by respondent no.1, his appointment to the post of Assistant Professor at the advertised scale was duly approved by the respondent no.4 in their 3^rd meeting held on 26.02.2011 and the respondent no. 2 duly communicated the same through email dated 08.03.2011 contained in annexure-2 series. She then submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor vide letter dated 08.04.2011 issued by respondent no.2 on the recommendation of the Faculty Selection Committee of the respondent no.1 and after obtaining due approval of the respondent no. 4 at a basic pay of INR 47,792/- (inclusive of one increment) per month and in the scale of INR 37,400- 67000 (PB-4) with AGP INR 9000/- revised (included). By way of referring Annexure-4 she further elaborates her argument by way of submitting that after two years of probation from the date of joining, petitioner’s service was confirmed by respondent no.2 by appointment letter dated 08.04.2011. In this background she submits that earlier the petitioner was engaged in service as a faculty of Associate Professor since October, 2009 and in the pay scale of INR 31980-875- 38980-EB-875-45980 amounting to a gross salary of INR 80,156/- as of April 2011. She submits that in the light of said advertisement the petitioner applied and joined the post and he was being paid regularly and all of a sudden, the petitioner received email dated 31.01.2018 whereby the petitioner was asked to repl