T C ROY Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against Exhibits P1, P3 and P5. The net effect of these orders, confirmed one after another, is that steps are taken to recover the incentive already paid to the petitioner for the business that he had secured for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Exhibit P1 order was for the first time issued only on 14-1-1998. Exhibit P1 order was later confirmed by Exhibits P3 and P5. Petitioner submits that whatever be the mistake that the respondents have committed in effecting payment of incentive now claimed to be rectified, what had been paid, cannot be recovered from the petitioner. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents that payment was made to the petitioner due to bonafide mistake on the part of the authorities in implementing Exhibit R1(a).

(2.) Even if Exhibit R1(a) issued in 1995 is pressed into service, it cannot be for the purpose of recovery of the incentive already paid before the said order, namely, for the year 1994-95. Therefore, the recovery of incentive paid for the year 1994-95 cannot be justified on the strength of Exhibit R1(c).

(3.) Inspite of the existence of Exhibit R1(a), respondents paid mistakenly the petitioner incentive during the year 1995-96. The petitioner was paid, he made use of it. Now it cannot be, when the respondents realised the mistake, asked to be refunded. This aspect is covered by the decision reported in Sathyapalan v. Deputy Director of Education (1998 (1) KLT 399). Ofcourse, it was in the matter of refixation of salary of an employee. The salary of the incumbent concerned was fixed in higher stage. Later, it was found to be erroneous and corrected, and the incumbent was directed to refund the excess payment received. This court held that the incumbent cannot be asked to refund whatever amount paid to him because such payment was not at the instance of the incumbent concerned but on a wrong understanding of law by the authorities concerned. That principle shall squarely apply to the payment of incentive as well. Accordingly, Exhibits P1, P3 and P5 are quashed. O.P. is allowed to the above extent. No costs.