Paid By Mistake; They Had Given Undertakings: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals By NIT Teachers Against Recovery Of Excess Amount
The Supreme Court was considering the appeals filed by the employees of the National Institute of Technology against a judgment allowing the University’s appeal.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court
While dismissing the appeal filed by the teachers of the National Institute of Technology, the Supreme Court has observed that the excess amount paid to the employees can be recovered in view of the undertakings given by them.
The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed by the employees of the National Institute of Technology against a judgment allowing the University’s appeal.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu stated, “It is, therefore, clear that a mistake was committed in extending financial benefits to the appellants; and this was immediately withdrawn upon detection of such mistake. Such recovery of the amounts paid by mistake to the appellants, in view of the undertakings given by them, did not warrant interference by the Single Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the Division Bench appears to be right in its interdiction.”
Advocate Sanchar Anand represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shyam Padman represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The matter revolves around the grant of Academic Grade Pay to the appellants, who were Lecturers/Assistant Professors. After financial benefits following such grant were extended to the appellants on or about October 2009, the same were withdrawn in January 2010 on the ground that they had not put in the requisite years of service.
Issue
The issue before the Bench was whether financial benefits extended to a class of teachers voluntarily by the respondents and without any misrepresentation or fraud at the end of such teachers could be withdrawn.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that a mistake was committed in extending financial benefits to the appellants and undertakings were already given by the appellants. In light of such facts, the Bench held that the recovery of the amounts paid by mistake to the appellants did not warrant any interference. The Bench also noted that no case of hardship was canvassed by the appellants.
“In any event, whether recovery of money would result in hardship has to be determined on the facts of each particular case. After all, we cannot presently conceive of a situation where recovery of money from the recipient would not cause hardship. However, for instance, if it is pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the writ court that entirety of the excess payment received by the employee has since been spent towards medical treatment and that the employee concerned would face immense hardship in returning such excess payment, or if the same were recovered from him through initiation of appropriate proceedings, in a deserving case the Court would be justified in quashing the notice seeking recovery or refund. This would also be subject to the employee satisfying the Court that the excess payment was not received on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Since no such case exists here, the contention is rejected”, it added.
The Bench further noted that the appellants had not contended that they were, as of right, entitled to the financial benefits flowing from the grant of Academic Grade Pay and the same was erroneously withdrawn. The Bench thus dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Dr. M. K. Ravi Varma v. National Institute Of Technology (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1080)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Sanchar Anand, Anant Kumar Vatsya, Karan Thakur, Diva Singh, Anukurat Singh Baweja, Ananaya Khare, Rashi Agnihotry, AOR Devendra Singh
Respondent: Senior Advocate Shyam Padman, AOR Naresh Kumar, Advocates Jaimon Andrews, Piyo Harold J, Ashwathy Shyam, Firdouse C P, Nandhitha Dinesh