In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has issued a ruling on the recovery of excess payments in the case related to Hansraj College. The court’s decision addresses the demands made by the college towards alleged overpayments and sets a precedent in similar disputes. This judgment is crucial in defining the boundaries of financial recoveries in academic settings. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalCase #ExcessPayments
Facts
- The petitioner, who has been serving as an Associate Professor in the English Department at Hansraj College since 1984, had taken a study leave from 10.08.2009 to 09.08.2012 which was sanctioned by the college.
- The college demanded a total of Rs.7,62,750 towards excess payments made to the petitioner through a letter dated 29.05.2019.
- Additionally, the Accounts Department sought to recover Rs.4,69,734 claimed as excess payments made towards House Rent Allowance during the study leave period.
- The petitioner asserts that being under full employment during the study leave, he was entitled to all pay and emoluments.
- Following a decision by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) on recovery of excess emoluments in light of a Supreme Court decision, the college demanded the excess amount based on the CAG’s Report dated 18.06.2013.
- The petitioner, despite representations, faced continued demand for repayment which led to the filing of the writ petition.
- After 7 years from the CAG report, the petitioner was asked to pay an additional sum alleged as excess Travel Allowance between 10.08.2009 to 09.08.2012.
- The petitioner argues that there was no knowledge of the CAG report, and the Delhi University Executive Council had decided to apply the DoPT’s OM to the university and its colleges in 2017.
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the case is covered by the judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. vs Rafiq Masih.
- Sub para (3) of para 18 of the Rafiq Masih judgment would apply to the petitioner’s case, barring recovery after 5 years.
- The demand notices do not involve misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner, aligning with Rafiq Masih criteria.
- Arguments made by Mr. Gogna for respondent focus on CAG Audit Report initiating the action for recovery of public funds.
- Gogna contends that HRA and TA payment to the petitioner is public money hence needs to be recovered.
- Mr. Gogna challenges the justification of HRA and TA as per the Rafiq Masih ratio for the petitioner, being an Associate Professor.
- In Gogna’s view, sub para (5) of para 18 of Rafiq Masih judgment would apply, not sub para (3), and the college is not bound by the same rigor as the State.
- Citing CAG report, Gogna asserts irregular payments to the petitioner were not justified under Rafiq Masih judgment.
- Petitioner’s counsel rebuts, highlighting the lack of mention of misrepresentation or fraud in the demand notices.
- Referring to a similar case precedent, the petitioner’s counsel argues for restraint on recovery, akin to study leave case decision.
- Petitioner’s study leave for completing doctorate is justified, making the payment during study leave reasonable.
- The Court notes the arguments from both sides and addresses the issue of entitlement to recover alleged excess payments to the petitioner in detail.
- Mr. Gogna’s argument was based on the CAG Report dated 18.06.2013.
- The CAG Report highlighted excess payments made by the college to employees for irregular payment of TA and Earned Leave.
- A detailed assessment of the excess payments was provided in the CAG Report.
Analysis
- Recoveries of Travel Allowance made after 7 years were deemed impermissible.
- Employees in Class III and Class IV services were exempt from recovery.
- Recoveries from retired or soon-to-retire employees were not allowed.
- Recovery beyond 5 years from the date of payment was impermissible.
- Wrongful payments due to incorrect job assignments were not recoverable.
- The Supreme Court stipulated specific time limits for recoveries.
- Initial payments were not based on misrepresentation or fraud in this case.
- Recovery orders were issued beyond the stipulated period of 5 years.
- The Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel vs State of Kerala reiterated that recovery from an employee should not be made if it is iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary.
- The judgment primarily covers employees in Class III and Class IV service (Group C and Group D service) but not employees like the petitioner.
- Mr. Gogna argues that the petitioner, being a highly paid and well-educated employee, cannot be equated with the employees in the Rafiq Masih case.
- In Rafiq Masih case, an exception was made for Class IV employees such as drivers and washmen, which does not directly apply to the petitioner.
- In certain cases, the respondent-college or any government department may be entitled to make a recovery.
- Recovery may be possible if the exceptions outlined in the Supreme Court judgment in Rafiq Maish do not apply to the specific case.
- The issue of recovery is addressed in sub-para (iii) of paragraph 18 of the Rafiq Masih judgment.
Decision
- The petition and pending application are disposed of within six weeks from today.
- The impugned recovery notices dated 14.02.2019 and 15.05.2019 are set aside due to not meeting the standards set by Supreme Court cases of Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel.
- The present writ petition is successful.
- The respondent is directed to return Rs.30,000 to the petitioner as it was stated to have been recovered from them.
Case Title: MR. SANJAY KUMAR Vs. HANS RAJ COLLEGE AND ANR. (2024:DHC:4017)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-9265/2019
