Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. VENUGOPAL
S. Mohandoss
Versus
The Director, Local Fund Audit, Chennai & Another
WP.(MD)No. 7882 of 2008 & M.P. (MD)No.1 of 2008
Decided On :Decided on: 03-02-2011
Recovery of Excess Salary - Employment Dispute - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 72
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of Kovilpatti Municipality, sought the recovery of a sum deducted from his retirement benefits due to an alleged excess salary payment. The dispute arose from the erroneous fixation of the petitioner's pay scale by the municipality, leading to the recovery order issued after the petitioner's retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of the deducted amount was not valid in the eye of the law, as the petitioner was not responsible for the erroneous pay fixation and had not misrepresented any information. The court directed the municipality to refund the deducted amount within two months and set aside the impugned order to prevent injustice.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of the recovery order, the responsibility for the erroneous pay fixation, and the applicability of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 72 in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that a person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake must repay or return it, as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It emphasized that the petitioner was not responsible for the erroneous pay fixation and, therefore, the recovery was not justified.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the municipality was directed to refund the deducted amount. The court granted liberty to the first respondent to fix the correct salary of the petitioner for pension purposes, if necessary.
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in re.Ni.Mu.No.MPV3/ 16465/2006 dated 4.5.2006 and to quash the same. Further, the respondents have been directed to refund a sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) recovered from the petitioners terminal benefits towards the alleged excess salary.
2. The petitioner was an employee, worked under the Second Respondent/Kovilpatti Municipality. He got superannuation on 30.6.2005. He joined the second respondent/Municipality as Bill Collector in the year 1971 and put in 35 years of unblemished service record.
3. It is the stand of the petitioner that his salary was fixed by the Second Respondent/Municipality for the post of Bill Collect on and from 1.6.1988. He was drawing the salary payments from the year 1998 payable to the Bill Collector till his retirement on 30.6.2005 as determined by the Department.
4. The petitioner was informed as per impugned order of recovery proceedings dated 22.5. 2006 issued by the first respondent that excess payment of salary has been determined by the authorities and that he has drawn excess salary and that the respondents made an endeavour to recover the said sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) from his retirement benefits. The action was initiated on the basis of audit report. The respondents had not issued any notice to him in regard to the proposed action of recovery or intimated the same till the date of retirement of the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Respondent/Director of Local Fund Audit has issued the impugned order dated 22.5.2006 for the recovery for the alleged excess amount of Rs.18,811/-(Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) said to have been paid to him from 1.6.1988 to 30.6.2005 from his retirement benefits. The respondents had not chosen to issue any notice to the petitioner during all these years and issued the impugned order of recovery dated 22.5.2006 after one year of petitioners retirement which is an erroneous one.
6. The petitioner made a representation on 4.8.2008 to the respondents through communication dated 4.8.2008 praying for refund of a sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only)which has been recovered from him. In the said representation in paragraph No.2 it is also made mention of that through the petitioners State Bill Collectors Association, proper explanation has been given and the audit objection 48/90-91 has been cancelled and a letter has been sent to the Bill Collectors State General Secretary on 18.9.1992.
7. The main plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that for wrong fixation of his pay fixed in the scale of Rs. 1,200-2040 (Rupees one thousand two hundred - two thousand and forty) instead of Rs.975-1660(Rupees nine hundred and seventy five -one thousand six hundred and sixty) by the office of the second respondent with effect from 1.6.1988 and continued up to 30.6.2005 was not his fault and he is not any way responsible personally for the same and any event the recovery of amount of Rs,18,811/_ ((Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) which has been made by the second respondent is not valid in the eye of law.
8. Per contra, it is the contention of Mr.Sasikumar, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent that the petitioners pay was erroneously fixed in the scale of pay Rs.1200-2040 (Rupees one thousand two hundred -two thousand and forty) instead of Rs. 975-1660(Rupees nine hundred and seventy five -one thousand six hundred and sixty) by the office of the second respondent with effect from 1.6.1988 and therefore, the impugned order of recovery passed by the first respondent as per order dated 22.5.2006 is a valid one in the eye of law because of t
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
