Recovery Of Excess Gratuity From Retired Employee Without Misrepresentation Impermissible: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that recovery of alleged excess gratuity from a retired employee is not permissible where there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the excess payment has arisen due to the employer's own calculation.Justice Budi Habung, presiding over the case, observed, “In the present case the petitioner is a retired employee. The gratuity was calculated by the respondent authority and it was released by the department itself. There is no any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner. The alleged excess payment arose, if at all, was due to departmental recalculation after retrospective promotion. Thus, the case squarely falls within the protective umbrella of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases.”Further, Justice Habung held, “The contention of the respondents that excess payment is automatically recoverable cannot be accepted in view of aforesaid settled judicial principles.”As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Range Officer in 1976 and retired in 2011 as Assistant Conservator of Forests. Initially, he was paid DCRG amounting to Rs. 6,76,253/-. Thereafter, upon revision of pension, a further amount of Rs. 1,54,341/- was released, making the total gratuity Rs. 8,30,594/-.The petitioner had earlier filed a petition seeking promotional and financial benefits, consequential arrears and re-fixation of pension. During the pendency of that writ petition, he was retrospectively promoted to the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forests. Pursuant to the Court's direction, the authorities recalculated and released the pensionary dues.However, by a later order, the Accountant General directed recovery of Rs. 1,30,594/- on the ground of excess gratuity, stating that due to a technical error Rs. 8,30,594/- had been wrongly authorised instead of Rs. 7,00,000/-.The issue before the Court was whether recovery of such alleged excess gratuity, in absence of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner, is legally sustainable.The petitioner contended that the gratuity was calculated and paid by the competent authority and no error was attributable to him, and therefore recovery was illegal. The respondents submitted that upon revision of pension after retrospective promotion, it was found that excess gratuity had been paid beyond the permissible limit and was therefore recoverable.On consideration of the materials, set aside and quashed the impugned order directing recovery of Rs. 1,30,594/- and directed refund of the said amount within three months, with interest at 6% per annum in case of delay.“In view of the above, the impugned recovery is arbitrary, inequitable and contrary to law,” the Court concluded. Case Title: Jahindra Brahma v. State of Assam & Ors.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 62Case Number: WP(C)/3144/2023Click here to read the judgment

Recovery Of Excess Gratuity From Retired Employee Without Misrepresentation Impermissible: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

Recovery Of Excess Gratuity From Retired Employee Without Misrepresentation Impermissible: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers