Supreme Court bars recovery of excess money from low-income staff

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said government cannot recover excess money wrongly transferred to low-income workers. In any such issue between an individual and the welfare state, the court would side with the weaker party and decide the issue in consonance with the justice assured to all citizens by the Constitution, a two-judge bench said.

The top court has specifically barred recovery in cases involving payments to Class III and Class IV or Group C and D retired employees, or those due to retire in a year. It has also barred recovery from employees, wherever excess payment was made five years ago before a recovery order was issued, or where they had been wrongfully required to discharge duties of a higher post and were paid accordingly.

Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra dealt with a batch of cases from Punjab challenging such recovery orders in their judgment delivered on December 18.

One of the affected persons was a white-washer who claimed that he was not party to any wrongdoing which led to extra payment to him from his employer.

“The right to recover being pursued by the employer will have to be compared with the effect of the recovery on the employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee’s right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover,” the bench said.

The court said that any other interpretation would be harsh and arbitrary and hence violation of Article 14, which refers to right to equality guaranteed by the Consti tution as 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,” the court said.

Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to provide for the educational needs of those dependent upon him as well as their medical requirements and a variety of sundry expenses, the court said.