Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1352 - SC - Indian LawsRecovery of excess money from the pensionary benefit of the Respondent-white washer - wrong fixation of pay - whether the Government is entitled to recover from an employee any payment made in excess of what the employee is otherwise entitled to, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee? - HELD THAT - The observations made by the Court not to recover the excess amount paid to the Appellant-therein were in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which vest the power in this Court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case 2012 (8) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURT , a specific issue was raised and canvassed. The issue was whether the Appellant-therein can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The Court after taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that the excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered. Article 142 of the Constitution of India is supplementary in nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they are not limited by the substantive provisions in the statute. It is a power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice oriented approach as against the strict rigors of the law - The Court have compartmentalized and differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by exercise of powers Under Article 142 of the Constitution as against the law declared. The directions of the Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. This Court on the qui vive has expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the Constitution by keeping it outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution and by declaring it a direction of the Court that changes its complexion with the peculiarity in the facts and circumstances of the case - the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first two judgments and the latter judgment. Matters sent back to the Division Bench for its appropriate disposal.
Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of excess money from pensionary benefits due to wrong pay fixation. 2. Applicability of Supreme Court's powers under Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 3. Interpretation of conflicting judgments in Shyam Babu Verma, Sahib Ram Verma, and Chandi Prasad Uniyal cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Recovery of Excess Money from Pensionary Benefits Due to Wrong Pay Fixation: The core issue revolves around whether the government can recover excess payments made to an employee due to erroneous pay fixation, especially when there is no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. The case in question involved the recovery of excess money from the pensionary benefits of a respondent due to a wrong pay fixation by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer. The respondent approached the High Court, which ruled against the recovery of the excess amount, relying on a Full Bench decision. 2. Applicability of Supreme Court's Powers under Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India: The judgment delves into the distinction between the powers conferred by Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution. Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to interfere in suitable cases, described as a "residuary power" with extraordinary amplitude. It is intended to correct injustice and make the law operational as a binding precedent. Article 142, on the other hand, allows the Court to pass enforceable decrees or orders necessary for "complete justice" in any cause or matter. This power is supplementary and gives preference to equity over law, allowing the Court to issue directions that may not constitute binding precedents but are aimed at achieving justice in specific cases. 3. Interpretation of Conflicting Judgments in Shyam Babu Verma, Sahib Ram Verma, and Chandi Prasad Uniyal Cases: The judgment addresses the apparent conflict between the decisions in Shyam Babu Verma and Sahib Ram Verma, which ruled against the recovery of excess payments, and Chandi Prasad Uniyal, which allowed such recovery. In Shyam Babu Verma, the Court held that the excess amount paid due to no fault of the petitioners should not be recovered. Similarly, in Sahib Ram Verma, the Court ruled against recovery since the excess payment was due to a mistake by the Principal, not misrepresentation by the appellant. Conversely, in Chandi Prasad Uniyal, the Court held that excess payments made due to employer mistakes could be recovered, emphasizing the responsibility to manage public funds properly and avoid unjust enrichment. The judgment clarifies that the decisions in Shyam Babu Verma and Sahib Ram Verma were made under Article 142, exercising the Court's extraordinary powers to achieve equitable outcomes, whereas Chandi Prasad Uniyal was decided under Article 136, establishing a legal precedent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that there is no conflict between the judgments when viewed through the lenses of Articles 136 and 142. The former judgments were specific to their facts and aimed at complete justice under Article 142, while the latter established a broader legal principle under Article 136. Consequently, the reference to a larger bench was deemed unnecessary, and the matters were remitted to the Division Bench for appropriate disposal.
|