Allowed

Satish Babu V.T. v. the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Oct 2021WP(C)/10276/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a retired employee seeking refund of Rs.1,08,412/- wrongly recovered as arrears. The Court allowed the petition, holding that recovery was effected without notice or opportunity of hearing, applying Supreme Court guidelines that protect employees in such scenarios.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to refund Rs.1,08,412/- within two months; claim for interest dismissed.

Satish Babu V.T. Vs the Fertilizers and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 20TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10276 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SATISH BABU V.T. AGED 58 YEARS S/O.THANKAPPAN, SENIOR TECHNICIAN (MECH) (RETIRED), THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, RESIDING AT SWATHY NIVAS, POOSARIPADI, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683 513. BY ADVS. C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL SRI.PAUL C THOMAS SHRI.BABU M. SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN SRI.HAARIS MOOSA SMT.DEVYANI SMT.NIKHITA ANN REBELLO SHRI.ADESH JOSHI

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE), UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., KOCHI-683 501, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR KURYAN THOMAS K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

WP(C) NO. 10276 OF 2021

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Petitioner joined the service of the respondent company in 1990 and after a long span of service of 31 years, he retired on superannuation on 31/3/2021. He was issued with Ext.P1 salary cum statement with details of earnings and salary wherein it was indicated that an amount of Rs.43,860/- basic arrears, an amount of Rs.59874.47/as DA arrears and a sum of Rs.4678.20 as leave encashment arrears which were paid in excess, were liable to be recovered from him. The total amount thus sought to be recovered, from him was Rs.1,08,412/-. Contending that the amount, if at all paid in excess, cannot be recovered petitioner has approached this court. Relief sought is to direct the respondent to refund to the petitioner, the recovered amount of Rs.1,08,412/- with 12% interest from the date of recovery, evidenced by Ext.P1, within a time frame.

¶15

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent company explaining that apparent mistake occurred while effecting stagnation promotion of the petitioner, to E1 scale. Consequently, excess amount happened to be paid to him, which was recovered from him at the time of retirement.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner canvased the position that, he is entitled for protection of the decision reported in S tate of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih(2015) 4 SCC 334), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to certain categories of persons and certain situations wherein

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO. 10276 OF 2021

¶19

recovery cannot affected. Learned counsel specifically contended that the petitioner falls within clause (2) of the exempted category.

¶20

Though the learned counsel for the respondent tried to salvage the position by contending that the excess amount paid, is not disputed and that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih(supra), I am not inclined to accept that contention. The above decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. It is also to be noted that recovery was effected without any notice. He was not given an opportunity of being heard. No undertaking was taken from the petitioner at the time of disbursement of the benefits, that the amounts will be recovered if paid in excess. In the absence of this, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ is allowed. The respondent is directed to return a sum of Rs.1,08,412/- (Rupees One Lakh eight thousand four hundred and twelve only) recovered from the petitioner. The amount shall be repaid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for interest on the amount ordered to be returned, considering the entire circumstances, I do not find any merit in his claim for interest.

¶22

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶25

dpk

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO. 10276 OF 2021

¶28

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10276/2021

¶29

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶30

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

Satish Babu V.T. v. the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Babu V.T. v. the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Arun.S Vs K.Srinivasan

Maneesh Kumar T. Vs Mohandas

Arshaj S. Vs Secretary

Sanjeev M. Vs Union of India

Athira R Vs Regional Cancer Centre

Ramachandran a. Vs Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board