Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 82 (CAL)

Madan Gopal Goswami v. State Of West Bengal

2020-01-21

KAUSIK CHANDA, SANJIB BANERJEE

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The Court : There is no merit in the appeal and the substantive prayer made in the writ petition and repeated in the appeal is founded on an erroneous understanding of a Supreme Court judgment to be the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution. 2. It appears that this appellant was a part of several employees who did not have any promotional avenues and, upon an earlier writ petition being filed, an expert body was required to look into the grievances and career progression matters. Thereafter, the employer introduced a promotion policy along with increments to the salary. The petitioner was one of the initial candidates who obtained the benefit of both the promotion and the increased salary. It was later discovered that those who had availed of the promotion could not have obtained the increased salary at the lower level prior to their promotion. It was, thus, discovered that the petitioner had been paid much in excess of what was legitimately due to the petitioner owing to a mistake on the part of the employer. 3. During the last few months of the petitioners tenure in service prior to his superannuation, the excess payment already made to the petitioner was adjusted from the monthly salary bills of the petitioner and the last of such adjustments was completed a few months prior to the petitioners retirement in June, 2005. It does not appear that the petitioner immediately protested the deductions made from the petitioners salaries. Indeed, the petitioner quietly retired and collected all the retiral benefits before instituting the petition which remained pending for a considerable period of time. 4. Apart from the other grievance that some others may have been given the similar benefit that the petitioner was denied, the principal ground in the writ petition was that money had been deducted out of the petitioners subsequent salaries for excess payments made by the employer without the employer having been induced to make such excess payments by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner sought to rely on the principle seen to have been enunciated by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported at (1994) 2 SCC 521 (Shyam Babu Verma) . It appears that the petitioner sought to rely on the principle seen to have been enunciated by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported at (1994) 2 SCC 521 (Shyam Babu Verma) . It further appears that in a subsequent judgment, reported at 1995 Supp 1 SCC 18 (Sahib Ram) , the Supreme Court also observed that money paid to the employees without there being any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employees ought not to be recovered at a subsequent stage. 5. However, in the judgment reported at (2012) 8 SCC 417 (Chandi Prasad Uniyal) , the issue was whether the appellant therein could retain the amount received on the basis of irregular or wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. After referring to several judgments, the Supreme Court held that even if by mistake of the employer an excess amount is paid to the employee and, on a later date, the employer discovers such excess payment having been made by mistake or as a result of negligence, the excess payment could be recovered. 6. The apparent conflict between the dictum in Shyam Babu Verma , as reiterated in Sahib Ram , and in Chandi Prasad Uniyal received the attention of the Supreme Court and a reference was made to a Bench of three Judges for the issue to be resolved. The three-Judge Bench held that in both Shyam Babu Verma and in Sahib Ram , the observations made by the Supreme Court were in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution that vests the authority in the Supreme Court to pass equitable orders for the ends of justice. The three-Judge Bench in the judgment reported at (2014) 8 SCC 883 (State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih) held that in Chandi Prasad Uniyal, it was the law on such aspect of the matter that was declared by the Supreme Court. The three-Judge Bench in the judgment reported at (2014) 8 SCC 883 (State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih) held that in Chandi Prasad Uniyal, it was the law on such aspect of the matter that was declared by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, since the apparent dictum enunciated in Shyam Babu Verma and repeated in Sahib Ram has been found not to be the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and the ratio decidendi in Chandi Prasad Uniyal to be what governs the field, it can no longer be contended that any excess payment made by mistake in course of pay fixation by an employer to an employee cannot subsequently be recovered from the employee. Indeed, in Chandi Prasad Uniyal, it was observed that it was irrelevant as to whether there was no case of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee; once it was discovered that State funds had been released in excess of what was due to the recipient, such funds could always be recovered. 7. In the light of the judgment in Chandi Prasad Uniyal as explained in Rafiq Masih , the principal grievance of the appellant is of no substance. The excess amount subsequently recovered from the appellant was in accordance with law. As to the other petty grievances of the petitioner pertaining to some other having got some benefit which may not have been extended to the petitioner, it must be remembered that the relationship between the employer and employee stood severed at the time of retirement save for the purpose of receiving the pension and retiral benefits. Since the appellant herein did not complain of such other matters prior to the appellants retirement and, indeed, the appellant waited till after his retirement and the receipt of the entirety of his retiral dues, to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution , the writ Court was justified in not entertaining such grievances. It must also be kept in mind that the principle of equality in Article 14 of the Constitution does not operate in the negative sense. 8. The judgment and order impugned dated October 4, 2016 does not call for any interference. APO No.302 of 2016 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.