Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 194 (KAR)

Y. B. Siddaramu v. T. R. Ramesh

2009-03-11

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioners in all these three petitions are employees under the respondent Company working in different capacities. Admittedly, they have been appointed in the service of the respondent company subsequent to 01-01-1994 and prior to 08-10-1996. It is the case of petitioners that the respondent company by an office order dated 08-10-1996 voluntarily extended the benefit of wage increase to all its employees including the petitioners herein pursuant to the recommendation of 3rd tripartite wage committee for sugar industries. Thereafter, for the first time in 2006 December, the respondent issued a Notice to some of the petitioners on the basis that the wage increase pursuant to recommendation of third tripartite committee for sugar industries is for the employees who were on the role of the first respondent company as on 01-01-1994 and not for those who are appointed subsequently. Since these employees have been appointed to the respective post subsequent to 01-01-1994, the said benefit does not enure to their benefit, whatever benefit extended to petitioners under office Order dated 08-10-1996 is without basis, the same is required to be withdrawn. In the same notice there was also an order to recover the increased wages that was paid to the petitioners pursuant to the wage revision till the date of the notices. However in respect of some petitioners no notice was issued straight away recovery was initiated. The petitioners in all these three petitions have come up in these writ petitions challenging the notice and recovery initiated by the respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent itself voluntarily extended the benefit of wage increase pursuant to recommendation of third tripartite committee of sugar industries in the year 1996, the said benefit was extended to them from 1996 till 2006 without any interruption. After a period of 10 years now there is an attempt by the respondent to withdraw the same without hearing the petitioners in this behalf. According to the petitioners the said increase in wage is not given to them pursuant to misrepresentation or fraud committed by them in securing the said benefit from the respondent. On the contrary it is the respondent itself by its own order extended the said benefit for the petitioners in the year 1996 and continued to pay the excess wages till 2006. 3. On the contrary it is the respondent itself by its own order extended the said benefit for the petitioners in the year 1996 and continued to pay the excess wages till 2006. 3. The recommendation of the third tripartite committee for sugar industries was only in respect of those employees who were already in service of Sugar industry as on 01-01-1994 and the said recommendation was not intended to be extended to those who have joined the services subsequent to 01-01-1994. According to the petitioners in all the three writ petitions having joined the services subsequent to 01-01-1984 and prior to 01-09-1996 and the extension of the benefit of wage increase to the petitioners is only by a mistake though they were not entitled to the said benefit as per the recommendations of the third tripartite committee. It is the case of the petitioners that, even if the respondent has extended the benefit by mistake having allowed them to take the benefit of enhanced wage for a period of 10 years, they cannot now seek recovery of the same. Even if the said wage is required to be discontinued the same can be discontinued only after giving proper notice and not by passing recovery order unilaterally. According to the petitioners, the notices which are produced as Annexures in all the three writ petitions though they are termed as notices, in effect they are in the nature of recovery order and the same is illegal, as the said order is passed without giving any opportunity of being heard. Under such circumstances, same is required to be quashed. 4. In support of their case, the petitioners relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 18, wherein certain benefits were extended to the petitioners for which they were not entitled. The Apex Court while deciding the said case has held as follows:- “Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of realization the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. The Apex Court while deciding the said case has held as follows:- “Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of realization the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that he benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The Appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.” In the matter of Babulal Jain –vs- State of M.P. & Others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 180 , while deciding the right of recovery of higher wage wrongly paid to a person, who was not entitled to receive the same, the Apex Court has held as follows:- “We, however, are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, no recovery should be directed to be made. The appellant has discharged higher responsibilities. It is not a case where he obtained higher salary on committing any fraud or misrepresentation. The mistake, if any, took place on a misconception of law. He was at least entitled to some allowances. In refixing his pay, his claim to that effect has not been considered. He has since retired. A sum of Rs. 22,000-00 has been recovered from him. Such recovery has been effected without issuing any show-cause-notice. His case on merit in this behalf had not been considered by the Government and even by the Tribunal.” In the matter of N.Eswar –vs- The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, reported in 2006(4) KCCR 2708, in the matter of recovery of excess payment made to an employee on account of mistake, this Court has held as under:- “If the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employees, the excess amount should be recovered from the employees concerned. But if the employees are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud and the amount has been paid due to a mistake on the part of the authority concerned in fixing or deciding the pay scale applicable, the excess payment already made should not be recovered.” 5. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the petitioners are also similarly placed. The petitioners herein have not secured the benefit of higher wages either by fraud or misrepresentation. The respondent has voluntarily extended the benefit of increased wages on the recommendation of tripartite committee for Sugar Industries, which is continued for a period of 10 years to the petitioners, cannot be recovered now under the impugned notices annexed to their petitions. However, it is open for the respondent to withdraw the same prospectively after giving notices to the petitioners and after giving opportunity of hearing them before refixing the salary withdrawing the wage increase extended to them under office order dated 08-10-1996. Accordingly, the impugned notices in all the three writ petitioners are quashed. With these observations the writ petitions are disposed off.