THOMAS DANIEL versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 02-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
THOMAS DANIEL
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010)
MAY 02, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Service Law: Retirement – Excess payment made to employees
by error, recovery of – On facts, recovery of increments granted to
the employee while in service almost ten years after his retirement
on the ground that the said increments were granted on account of
an error – Justification of – Held: If the excess amount was not
paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee
or paid by applying wrong principle for calculating the pay/
allowance or interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently
found to be erroneous, such excess payment made are not
recoverable – Relief against the recovery is granted not because of
any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion
to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that would
caused if the recovery is ordered – However, if the error is detected
or corrected in short time of wrong payment or the employee had
the knowledge of excess payment, then the courts can order for
recovery of amount paid in excess – On facts, excess payment made
due to a mistake in interpreting the Kerela Service Rules – Thus,
attempt to recover the said amount after ten years of retirement
unjustified – Equity.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If the excess amount was not paid on account
of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such
excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong
principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a
particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found
to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or
allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery
is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity,
exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees
from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 606
606
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
If in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge
that the payment received was in excess of what was due or
wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected
within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the
realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and
circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount
paid in excess. [Para 9][610-A-D]
1.2 It is not contended that on account of the
misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess
amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999.
In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was
made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which
was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. In view
thereof, an attempt to recover the said increments after passage
of ten years of his retirement is unjustified. [Paras 14 and 15][614-
E-F]
Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others (1995) 1
Suppl. SCC 18; Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government
of India and Others (2006) 11 SCC 709 : [2006] 7
Suppl. SCR 58; Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State
of Bihar and Others (2009) 3 SCC 475 : [2008] 17
SCR 917; State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and Others (2015) 4 SCC 334 : [2014]
13 SCR 1343 – referred to
Case Law Reference
(1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 18
referred to
Para 10
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 58
referred to
Para 11
[2008] 17 SCR 917
referred to
Para 12
[2014] 13 SCR 1343
referred to
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7115 of
2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2009 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 404 of 2006.
Raghenth Basant, Senthil Jagadeesan, Iqram Govind Singh, Advs.
for the Appellant.
THOMAS DANIEL v. STATE OF KERELA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
(1) This appeal raises an issue as to whether increments granted
to the appellant, while he was in service, can be recovered from him
almost 10 years after his retirement on the ground that the said increments
were granted on account of an error?
(2) The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under:
In the year 1966, the appellant herein joined services as a High
School Assistant/Teacher at Craven High School, Kollam which is an
aided

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.