The Bombay High Court overturned an order to recover an extra amount of over two lakhs from the widow of a high school lecturer despite the employee having promised to reimburse any excess amount paid to him at the time of pay fixation.
The widow and her children are entirely dependent on the pension of Rs. 14,250 per month, according to a division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and MW Chandwani, who decided that it would be cruel and unfair to demand the money back.
Although the employee had promised to reimburse any surplus money, the court ruled that it was not legal to deduct excess money from his widow’s family pension.
“Even though the deceased employee gave the undertaking when his salary was fixed, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, it will not be permitted to recover the excess amount of Rs. 2,62,841/- from the petitioner’s family pension.”
The employee had pledged to repay any access amount paid to him when the pay grade was set by the Gadchiroli Zilla Parishad in 2002. He passed away while serving in 2016.
The Zilla Parishad attempted to deduct more than Rs. 2,62,841 from the family pension in 2021 as a result of the grade pay for the period from July 1, 2002, to July 5, 2016, which was incorrectly fixed. The widow then went to the court.
If an employer can recover excess compensation provided to a deceased employee from the employee’s legal heirs based on an undertaking granted, that question was before the court.
The Zilla Parishad cited High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, a case in which the Supreme Court of India.
If an employer can recover excess compensation provided to a deceased employee from the employee’s legal heirs based on an undertaking granted, that question was before the court.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that an employee is compelled by a promise to reimburse any excess amount made while choosing the new pay scale, was used by the Zilla Parishad to bolster its position.
The court cited State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, in which the Apex Court listed a few circumstances in which recovering an excess sum was not permitted.
The court ruled that the instances specified in the Rafiq Masih decision are not all-inclusive and that recovery is prohibited in any other event if it is excessively harsh and surpasses the employer’s entitlement to recover access money.
According to the court, “relief against the recovery of excess amount is granted in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered, and not because of any right of the employee.”
The employee in the Jagdev Singh case was still alive and receiving his full pension, the court noted.
In addition, the recovery was requested within a year of his retirement.
But in this instance, the employee passed away.
The court stated that the employee in this case signed the promise in 2009, but that the employee passed away in 2016 and that his pay grade had changed in 2002.
The court stated that after 16 years of the undertaking and nearly 5 years after his passing, the Zilla Parishad has attempted to reclaim the excess sum. Additionally, the family pension already equals 50% of the initial annuity.
As a result, the court nullified two communications dated 18.1.2021 and 22.4.2021, to the degree that they requested the petitioner’s family pension be used to recoup claimed excess pay.
SRISHTI BHARDWAJ, B.COM LL.B
0 Comments