No Recovery Can Be Made When Pay Is Wrongly Fixed Without Any Misrepresentation By Employee: Patna High Court
A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Bikrama Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Ors has held when there is no misrepresentation or fraud leading to wrong pay fixation or pay, no recovery can be made from employees. Background Facts Bikrama Singh (Petitioner No. 1) & Rajendra...
A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Bikrama Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Ors has held when there is no misrepresentation or fraud leading to wrong pay fixation or pay, no recovery can be made from employees.
Background Facts
Bikrama Singh (Petitioner No. 1) & Rajendra Prasad Singh (Petitioner No. 2) (collectively 'Petitioners') were appointed to the post of correspondence clerk in 1978 and 1972 respectively. The Petitioner were promoted to the post of Head Clerk in 1996. One Ram Shankar Singh had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court in 2009 claiming that he was senior to Petitioner No. 1 and since the Petitioner No. 1 was granted promotion to the post of head clerk from 01.01.1996, then he should also be granted promotion from that date only. The Hon'ble High Court directed Chief Engineer Central Design Organization (Respondent) to consider the grievance of Ram Shankar Singh. The Respondents considered the case of Ram Shankar Singh and shifted the date of promotion of Petitioner No. 1 from 01.01.1996 to 01.04.2008 as Head Clerk and of Petitioner No. 2 from 01.01.1996 to 01.02.2001. Thus, the Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging this order of the Respondents.
It was contended by the Petitioners that no notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the challenged order. Further the promotions of the Petitioners were not granted on the basis of any misrepresentation by the Petitioners.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that the Respondents had not alleged that the Petitioners had misrepresented or committed any fraud for fixation of pay. In fact it has been conceded by the Respondents that wrong pay fixation was done on account of their mistake. The Court relied on the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih wherein the Supreme Court had held that no recovery can be effected from retired employees or employees who have been given excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay without any fraud and misrepresentation on their part.
Considering that the case of the Petitioners was squarely covered by the Rafiq Masih case, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the challenged orders and allowed the writ petition.
Case No.- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3455 of 2012
Case Name- Bikrama Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Ors
Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate : Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate
Counsel for Respondents- Nil