Rajasthan High Court Quashes Recovery Case Against Govt Employee Receiving 'Excess' Salary For 30 Years, Says Mistake Made By Department
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed a recovery order issued by the state's finance department against a government employee who was receiving excess salary on account of an error on the department's part for almost 30 years.
In doing so, high court observed that the employee did not mislead the department to get a higher pay and in fact the mistake was made by the department.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab & Ors. v Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (2015), a single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said that the petitioner employee's case is squarely covered by parameters as enumerated in the apex court's decision.
In Rafiq Masih the apex court had laid down certain situations in which recoveries could not be made from employees who mistakenly received excess salary and one such situation was where the excess payment was made for over five years before the recovery order was issued.
Justice Mathur further said: "it thus clearly emerges that there is no misrepresentation and/or concealment of any kind by overt or covert act or omission on the part of the petitioner, which led to according him higher pay than the one he deserved. The mistake was concededly on the part of the department and the petitioner did not mislead the department or contribute in any manner to accord himself higher salary than he ought to have been paid".
The Court was hearing a petition filed by an employee against whom the State Government had initiated recovery on account of the fact that due to some error on the government department's part, the petitioner was paid salary in excess to what he was entitled to.
It was argued by the State Government that excess amount in salary was paid to the petitioner under a bonafide error and it was a settled position in law that an excess amount given to the employee to which he was not entitled to could always be recovered.
The court however disagreed with the State's argument and noted that the state in its reply had not controverted that the benefit sated to have been erroneously conferred to the petitioner lasted for as long as 30 years. Being so, the period is clearly more than 5 years, as mentioned in Rafiq Masih judgment.
The relevant paragraph in Rafiq Masih, noted by the high court, states:
“It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
… (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.”
In view of the same the high court said that the "mistake, if any, was concededly on the part of the department".
In view the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, the high court observed that the State's decision was not sustainable.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the recovery proceedings against the petitioner and directed refund of any recovery made from the petitioner along with interest.
Case Title: Purna Shanker Sharma v the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 299