PRADIP ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the state.

(2.) A short grievance as raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner was given prematurely the benefit of CAS-II by bringing him in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-10,300/- and his pay was fixed on Rs.5260/- on 25.12.2004 deeming him to have completed 7 (seven) years of service on that day. But it is the admitted position that the petitioner did complete 7 (seven) years on that day to be entitled to get the Grade more than in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-Rs.10,300/- on 25.12.2005. The said erroneous fixation was detected by the respondent, particularly the Director of Economics and Statistics, after 13 (thirteen) years as would be evident from that order dated 04.10.2006 under No.F.1(188)/STAT/ESTT/1999/2114 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

(3.) It is after about thirteen years, a due drawn statement was drawn to the notice of the petitioner by the order dated 27.04.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The said order has revealed that the petitioner has drawn an excess amount of Rs.1,17,386/- for the period from 26.12.2004 to 30.04.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner has been asked to refund the said amount and in the event of failure, the amount will be recovered as an excess amount from his salary. The petitioner has challenged the said decision by means of this petition stating that in view of the law laid down by the apex court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 where the apex court having appreciated its earlier decisions in the field has laid down the law by stating that first and foremost, as it is pertinent, to note that the said Court in its judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir's case: (2009) 3 SCC 475, has recognized that the issue of recovery revolved on the action being iniquitous. Dealing with the subject of the action being iniquitous, it was sought to be concluded that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an action is iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because the action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received wrongfully for a long span of time. It is apparent, that a government employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family.