Excess Amount Paid To Employee Due To Wrong Refixation Of Pay Cannot Be Recovered If There Is No Refund Undertaking : Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the excess payment due to wrong or irregular pay fixation cannot be recovered in case there is no undertaking by the employee that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded.

A Writ Petition was filed by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada (CoP) against the order of the Tribunal that the Rt. Police Constable cannot be directed to pay overdraft amount of Rs.12,34,303/-.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed that, “There is no dispute on the proposition of law that at the time of refixation, if it was made erroneously on the higher side and the payment was made to an officer or employee and he had undertaken at that time that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded, such officer or employee would be liable to pay excess paid to him and that he cannot resile from the undertaking, if it is found subsequently that an excess payment was paid, to which, officer or employee was not entitled for payment on the refixation of the pay which was on the higher side and made erroneously. But here any such undertaking of the applicant at the time of the fixation of his pay at the time of his reappointment after resignation could not be placed before us.”

Advocate R. S. Manidhar Pingali represented the Petitioner, while Advocate B. Rajesh Kumar represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

Aggrieved by the order of the Administrative Tribunal, the present Writ Petition came before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Rt. Police Constable first joined the service in 1984, however, he resigned in 1994. Later, he made a representation to the Government in the year 1998 and accepting the request the Government permitted the applicant to withdraw his resignation on humanitarian grounds as a special case and directed for his reappointment as Police Constable subject to Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

At the time of his reappointment, his pay was fixed based on his last pay, however, on attaining the age of superannuation in 2017, the Rt. Police Constable was informed that his pay has been refixed, rectifying the mistake made in 1998.

The Commissioner of Police contended that it was the case wherein the refixation of the applicant’s pay on his reappointment was under mistake. The reappointment was to be treated as the first appointment. That mistake was corrected and the Rt. Police Constable's pay was refixed for grant of pension and other benefits and the excess amount paid was to be recovered.

Court’s Analysis

The point for consideration and determination before the Court was: Whether the excess amount paid to the applicant due to wrong refixation of pay could be recovered from him.

“So far as the aforesaid Rule 30 of the Rules 1996 is concerned, this was required to be seen by the authorities at the time of reappointment while refixation of the pay scale. It is not the case of the petitioners that the applicant played any role or committed any fraud in getting wrong fixation. The fixation of pay scale was made by the authorities, may be in ignorance of Rule 30 at that time or on a wrong consideration of such rule and when it was realized that the fixation was incorrectly made they had right to correct, but any excess amount paid, could not be recovered”, the Court held.

The Bench also highlighted that in the present case the Rt. Police Constable had not undertaken that any payment found to be made in excess would be required to be refunded. He had only undertaken for the refixation of his pay at the time of superannuation not the repayment of the excess amount received.

It was further observed, “We are of the view that such a consent of the applicant for refixation at the time of his superannuation because of the erroneous pay fixation at the time of his reappointment, cannot be considered to be consent for recovery of the excess amount already paid…The applicant has not challenged that part of the Order of the Tribunal. Consequently, so far as the recovery of the excess amount paid is concerned, it cannot be said that the applicant consented for recovery of the excess amount.”

In the view of the Court, the excess amounts paid to the Rt. Police Constable, cannot be recovered.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada V. P.M Babji

Click here to read/download Judgment.