Recovery of excess payments made to retired employees is impermissible under established legal principles, particularly when such payments result from a bona fide error.

Headnote:(A) Writ jurisdiction - Recovery of excess payment from retired employees - Section 72, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Court held that recovery was impermissible post-retirement as per established legal principles; principle from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reiterated. (Paras 8-13)

(B) Commonality in petitions - The High Court consolidated multiple petitions involving common questions of fact and law for resolution in a single judgment. (Paras 1-2)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, retired employees of the Education Department, challenged recoveries made from their gratuity, amounting to Rs. 5,64,568/-. The recovery was based on erroneous pay determination by the authorities. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The excess recovery was found inexecutable against retired employees according to the law, leading to the conclusion for necessary orders for refund. (Paras 12-13)

Issues: Whether the recovery of excess amounts post-retirement was permissible under existing legal precedents. (Paras 8-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the petitioners had not actively secured the excess payment, recovery after retirement was unjust, based on prior Supreme Court decisions. (Paras 8-12)

Result: Writ petitions allowed; directions for refund issued.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Petitioners are serving as Assistant Teacher, Junior High School/Headmaster, Government Primary School in the Education Department of the State. All the petitioners have retired from service on different dates. They are aggrieved by recovery made by the Authorities of Education Department from their retiral dues.

2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 629 of 2024 alone are being considered and discussed.

3. In WPSS No. 629 of 2024, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to return the recovered amount of Rs. 5,64,568/- along with 18% interest from the date of recovery upto date of its realization to the petitioner, which was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner.

4. According to petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Shahipur, Block Khanpur, District Haridwar in the pay scale of rs.4500-7000, on 31.12.2005; he was promoted in the year 2008 to the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Junior High School in the pay scale of rs.5500-9000; he completed age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years, on 03.01.2021, however, he was permitted to serve as Teacher till end of academic session, i.e. 31.03.2021, in terms of Government Policy. A sum of rs.5,64,568/- was recovered from the amount payable as Gratuity to him, vide order dated 26.07.2022 passed by Senior Treasury Officer.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Ashutosh Bhandari, District Primary Education Officer, Haridwar. Relevant extract of para 4 of the counter affidavit, which indicates the defence taken by the Department, is reproduced below:-

“As per the fitment table, minimum basic pay in Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- is pay band of Rs. 17140/-. The petitioner has received the benefit of fitment table (annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) and thus, received excess amount by taking advantage of erroneous pay determination. When the fact of wrong pay fixation of teachers came to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, thereafter, an order was issued by the Director, Primary Education on 28.04.2018 and directions were given to all District Education Officers to proceed for recovery of excess salary/payment made as a result of the said erroneous determination to the teachers, against which Writ Petition No. 990/SS/2018 (main petition) Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and other connected Writ Petitions were filed before this Hon’ble High Court in the year 2018. In the petitions in question, in the year 2018, the Hon’ble Court passed an interim order directing the respondent authorities not to make any recovery from the concerned petitioners, but no such petition was filed by the petitioner at that time. The petitioner retired on 3.7.2020 and Rs. 5,35,121/- were recovery from the retiral dues of the petitioner vide payment order dated 11.5.2022 (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition). The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Court after 2 years of his retirement.

It is submitted that vide order dated 6.11.2023, the Hon’ble Court partly allowed the Writ Petition No. 990/SS/2023 (main petition) Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and other connected bunch of writ petitions. But the recovery of the said petitioner has been made before the decision of the Hon’ble Court and in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 06.11.2023, no recovery has been made from the concerned employees.”

6. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner was wrongly given monetary benefits in excess of what he was entitled to, therefore, Departmental Authorities are well within their right to recover excess amount paid to him. He relies upon Section 72 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 for contending that petitioner cannot ret