CASE NAME-JOGESWAE SAHOO & ORS V/S THE DISTRICT JUDGE &ORS.
CASE NUMBER- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.5918/2024
DATE-31/01/25.
QUORUM – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGANTAM AND HON’BLE ME. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant was working as a stenographer, Grade 1, and personal assistant at the District Court of Cuttack, Odisha. On 10th May 2017, they received some financial benefit in their bank account. The money was credited through an office order number 63. The appellants were granted promotions, effective from 1st April 2003, to which they received the corresponding amount. Though the promotion was officially done later. Respondent 1’s recommendation for implementing Shetty’s commission report such promotions and financial benefits were made. Following this, the appellant continued service and later retired in 2020. However, in September 2023, more than 3 years after retirement, the district judge and registrar of the civil court of Calcutta issued orders seeking recovery of the financial benefit guaranteed to them previously. The reason cited for the recovery was an alleged erroneous interpretation of the Shetty commission recommendation.
ISSUE
The appellants challenged these recovery orders before the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) NO. 33482 OF 2023, but the plea was dismissed on November 9, 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Further, this issue was highlighted: –
-
- Is the recovery of excess payment made without any fault, fraud, or misrepresentation by the employee legally sustainable?
- Whether such recovery be initiated after retirement and without hearing the employee.
- Is an undertaking to refund the excess amount, if any, precluded the employee from challenging
LEGAL PROVISONS
Contract Act 1872- principle of unjust enrichment
Wages Act 1986 – It lays down the procedure that is to be followed while making any deductions.
Article 14 of the constitution of India.
ARGUMENTS
Appellants contention:
The appellant’s counsel contended that the financial benefits were granted by a competent authority in good faith and without any wrongdoing on the part of the appellants. They further contended that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employees. The benefits transferred were made in an official restructuring recommendation.
The recovery order was passed without any prior notice or opportunity to hear the appellant, violating the principle of natural justice.
Respondents’ arguments:
The respondent authorities argued that the appellant was not legally entitled to the benefit and had signed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess amount. Since the high court had not approved the retrospective promotion later, the benefit became invalid also that the recovery is justified based on administrative correction and terms of the undertaking.
ANALYSIS
- The appellant’s not getting the opportunity to be heard is a violation of human rights.
- The court held that undertaking taken from employees cannot override the principles of equity and fairness, particularly where the payment was not obtained frequently.
- Relief against recovery is not because of any legal rights but in equity exercising judicial decisions to protect employees from hardship as mentioned by the Supreme Court of India.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed the following directions: –
- The high court’s judgment dated November 9, 2023, in W.P. (c) NO. 33482 of 2023 is set aside.
- The recovery orders dated September 8 and 12, 2023 passed by the special judge and registrar, civil courts were quashed.
- The appellant is not liable to refund the financial benefits granted to them in 2017.
CONCLUSION
Thus, the above case helps us to understand in depth the rights available to employees in case of illegal remand by the employers. it also highlights the issue that no one is above the law, not even the judges, as in the present case, there was an erroneous act on the part of the court itself. The excess payment made by the employers is non nonrefundable payment
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PALAK CHAUHAN
