Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51569
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
GEORGE.K CHACKO – Respondent
WA/25/2022
SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH&WE 2) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,3) THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Entitlement to recovery from employees post-retirement is limited, and interest on withheld dues must be paid without delay.
Headnote:
Recovery - Employment - Kerala Health Research and Welfare Society - Sections 12 of Rafiq Masih - The court held that recovery of excess pay from an employee was unjustified as it was made nine months after retirement; entitlement to interest was established as DCRG was withheld.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, retired from service, contested the recovery of amounts deducted from his DCRG for excess payments during prior years. The challenge arose from administrative orders claiming overpayment based on audits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that interest was payable on the withheld DCRG amount, emphasizing that the administrative body's right to recover was nullified as the payment was due and the recovery was too late.
Issues: Was the deduction from the DCRG lawful, and was the petitioner entitled to interest on withheld amounts?
Ratio Decidendi: The law prioritizes equity, particularly when recovery occurs long after retirement and appears unjust. Thus, interest is necessary when amounts owed are unjustly withheld.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the petitioner to interest on withheld pay.
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias.C.P., J.
The Kerala Health Research and Welfare Society and its officials are the appellants challenging the judgment dated 3.8.2020 of the learned single Judge in WP(C)No.36394 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed directing the appellants to pass fresh orders regarding the claim of the first respondent against recovery of the amounts allegedly paid in excess.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-
The first respondent/writ petitioner, who retired from the service of the first appellant on 28.2.2017 questioned the actions of the Managing Director of the first appellant deducting an amount of Rs.1,00,757/- from the DCRG payable to the first respondent on the ground that the writ petitioner had been paid amounts in excess of his pay during the years 1999 to 2013. The recovery was made on the basis of an order dated 22.11.2016 issued by the Administrative Officer of the first appellant. The respondent disputed the claim of the writ petitioner.
3. The learned single Judge found that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount withheld from the DCRG and relegated the question of whether the appellants are entitled to recover the alleged excess pay from the petitioner in the light of the judgment inState of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [ 2015(1) KLT 429 ]. The learned single Judge also quashed Ext.P1 order in so far as it directed recovery of pay drawn in excess from the petitioner and Ext.P2 in so far as it did not sanction the disbursement of an amount of Rs.1,00,757/-. The appellants were directed to pass fresh orders regarding the claim of the petitioners against recovery. It was made clear by the learned single Judge that the consideration by the appellants will be confined to the question whether the petitioner's case comes within the situation envisaged in paragraph 12 ofRafiq Masih (supra) and that if the respondents find that it comes within that, the withheld amounts shall be released along with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date on which the balance amount of Rs.7,66,726/- became payable to the petitioner till the date of payment. The appellants unsuccessfully carried a review against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The judgment of the learned single Judge is under challenge in this appeal.
4. We have heard Sri. M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, Sri.M.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner – first respondent and Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Government Pleader for the second respondent.
5. The facts in the case are telling. The writ petitioner entered the service as Driver on 01.07.1979 and was regularised in service by order dated 18.9.1996 and had got the first time bound higher grade with effect from 1.7.1996 and the second time bound higher grade with effect from 1.7.2004. After 12 years, in the year 2016, the Senior Deputy Director of the Audit Department of the first respondent alleged irregularities in the fixation of pay between 1999 and 2013 and consequently the Administrative Officer of the first appellant issued Ext.P1 on 22.11.2016 directing recovery of excess pay alleged to have been drawn by the writ petitioner between 1999 to 2013. The petitioner had retired from service on 28.2.2017 and on 14.11.2017, nine months after the retirement of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,00,757/- was deducted from the DCRG payable to the petitioner alleging excess payment. It was those orders which were challenged along with a prayer for a declaration that the recovery effected from the DCRG as per Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary. The writ petitioner also prayed for release of the amount withheld from the DCRG.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that when the learned single Judge directed consideration of whether recovery could have been effected against the writ petitioner going by the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), there could not
