TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows recovery of over-payment from teachers/principals, emphasizing unjust enrichment & public money principles.</h1> <h3>Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the over-payment due to incorrect pay scale fixation could be recovered from teachers and principals, rejecting the argument ... Whether over-payment of amount due to wrong fixation of 5th and 6th pay scale of teachers/principals based on the 5th Pay Commission Report could be recovered from the recipients who are serving as teachers? Issues Involved:1. Recovery of over-payment due to wrong fixation of pay scales based on the 5th and 6th Pay Commission Reports.2. Legality of recovering over-paid amounts from teachers who did not commit misrepresentation or fraud.3. Applicability of previous Supreme Court judgments on similar matters.4. Consideration of the principle of unjust enrichment and public money.Detailed Analysis:1. Recovery of Over-payment Due to Wrong Fixation of Pay Scales:The core issue in the appeal was whether the over-payment made to teachers and principals due to incorrect fixation of the 5th and 6th pay scales could be recovered. The High Court had previously ruled that since the payments were made due to a mistake by the District Education Officer, they could be recovered. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, argued that the recovery was not legal as the over-payment was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on their part.2. Legality of Recovering Over-paid Amounts:The appellants contended that the recovery of the over-paid amounts was not legal since there was no misrepresentation or fraud involved. They cited several judgments, including *Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India* and *Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana*, to support their claim that recovery should not be made in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud. The respondents, however, argued that the beneficiaries had no right to retain the over-paid amounts, relying on the judgment in *Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) v. Government of India and Ors.*.3. Applicability of Previous Supreme Court Judgments:The Court reviewed several previous judgments to determine the applicability of the principles laid down. In *Shyam Babu Verma*, the Court had restrained recovery due to the financial impact and long period of over-payment. In *Sahib Ram*, recovery was restrained due to the principle of equal pay for equal work. However, the Court distinguished these cases from the present one, noting that the appellants were still in service and not on the verge of retirement, unlike the beneficiaries in *Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.*.4. Consideration of Unjust Enrichment and Public Money:The Court emphasized that the over-payment constituted public money, often referred to as 'tax payers' money,' and highlighted that any amount paid or received without authority of law could be recovered to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court noted that the excess payment was made due to a bona fide mistake and that the appellants were bound by a condition in the pay fixation order that allowed for recovery in cases of irregular or wrong pay fixation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the excess payment made due to wrong or irregular pay fixation could be recovered, barring a few exceptional cases of extreme hardship. The appellants did not fall into any exceptional category that would prevent recovery. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment and ordered the recovery of the excess payment from the appellants' salaries in twelve equal monthly installments. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
