LexCHANDI PRASAD UNIYAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 307 CHANDI PRASAD UNIYAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012) AUGUST 17, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) Service Law - Pay scale - Fixation of pay scale based on 5th Pay Commission Report - Excess payment made due A B to wrong/irregular pay fixation - Recovery of - Permissibility - C Whether over-payment of amount due to wrong fixation of 5th and 6th pay scale of teachers/principals based on the 5th Pay Commission Report could be recovered fr om the appellants who were serving as teachers or whether the appellants could retain the amount received on basis of irregular/wrong pay D fixation in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part - Held: Any ::lmount 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, E otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment - Appellants did not fall in any of the exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery F of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension - Excess payment made accordingly ordered to be recovered from appellant's salary in twelve equal monthly installments. The appellants-teachers/principals filed writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash G an inter-departmental communication followed by a letter issued by the District Education Officer to the Manager/ Principal of few Sanskrit Colleges in Hardwar where excess payments had been made due to wrong fixation 307 H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A of pay. The High Court rejected the writ petition holding that since payments were effected due to a mistake committed by the District Education Officer, the same could be recovered. 8 In the instant appeal, the appellants submitted that the payments were effected due to a mistake but not due to any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the appellants and hence the decision taken to recover the amount was not legal. The respondent-State, on the other C hand, submitted that over-payment was effected due to wrong fixation of pay and that where payments are made under a bona fide mistake, the beneficiaries have no right to retain the same. The question which therefore arose for consideration D was whether over-payment of amount due to wrong fixation of 5th and 6th. pay scale of teachers/principals based on the 5th Pay Commission Report could be recovered from the appellants who were serving as teachers or whether the aRpellants could retain the E amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. When the revised pay scale/pay fixation· was fixed on the basis of the 5th Central Pay Scale, a condition was superimposed that in the case of irregular/ wrong pay fixation, the institution shall be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the G salary/pension. The appellants are bound by that condition. The excess salary was paid due to irregular/ wrong pay fixation by the concerned District Education Officer. This Court has not laid down any principle of law that only if there is misrepresentation or fraud on the part H of the recipients of the money in getting the excess pay, CHANDI PRASAD UNIYAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF 309 UTTARAKHAND the amount paid due to irregular/wrong fixation of pay be A recovered. [Paras 8, 9] [314-E-G, 315-A-B] 1.2. In the instant case, excess payment of public money is involved which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. The concept of fraud or misrepresentation was incorrectly brought in such situations. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may B be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, C 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 bei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.