- (1.) The petitioner impugns the notice (Annexure P-3) vide which recovery of Rs. 5,36,058/- is being sought to be effected from her on account of grant of annual increments erroneously. The impugned notice would show that the petitioner was being asked to deposit this amount repeatedly but he failed to respond eventually leading to the issuance of said notice intending to recover the amount from his salary from September 2014.
(2.) The petitioner contends that such a recovery is impermissible in law as no misrepresentation was made by the petitioner and the increments were granted to her. He places reliance on Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012 4 SCT 277 where it has been observed as under:- "14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case and in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case , the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered."
(3.) In the same very judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "11. We may in this respect refer to the judgment of two-Judge Bench of this Court in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case where this Court after referring to Shyam Babu Verma case, Sahib Ram case and few other decisions held as follows:- "Such relief, restraining recovery back of excess payment, is granted by courts nor because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion, to relieve the employees, from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A Government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, Courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery." 12. Later, a three-Judge Bench in Syed Abdul Qadir case after referring to Shyam Babu Verma, Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) etc. restrained the department from recovery of excess amount paid, but held as follows: "Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants-teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.;