, 9/6)-06/2018151/,
, ACP/MACP , 2 ( , ,
,
2. Civil Appeal No.11527/2014,State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 182014
,
Fraud or Misrepresentation
67
"In view of the conclusion extracted hereinabove, it will be our endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact situations, wherein employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. In our considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an employee merely on account of the fact, that he was not an accessory to the mistake committed by the employer; or merely because the employee did not furnish any factually incorrect information, on the basis whereof the employer committed the mistake of paying the employee more than what was rightfully due to him; or for that matter, merely because the excessive payment was made to the employee, in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee".
"Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made…."
3. 12
, 12 "It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:"
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
( 3 (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous of harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
4. WP(S)-2725/2015,
15 2018
Civil Appeal No.11527/2014,
182014
WP(S)-2725/2015
152018Operative Part
Apparently, the respondents have acted contrary to the State's own litigation policy and flouted the law of the land as declared by the Supreme Court. The respondents have made themselves liable to the pay cost. In the aforesaid facts, before a final decision is taken in the matter, the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to file an affidavit indicating why guidelines/notification/circular, on recovery of payment made to an employee in excess to what he was entitled to, not issued to reduce the load of such litigations which are covered by decision of the Supreme Court.
5.
Fraud or Misrepresentation , (i 03 04 ( -'' '') Recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii (Recovery from retried employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of order of recovery)
(iii (Recovery from employees. when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued)
(iv
, (Recovery in case where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post and has been paid accordingly, even though he should rightfully been required to work against an inferior post);
(v ,
(In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover).
4 (6.
(
(
(
6. 23 2018 08
,
,
, ,
----------------