KASARAGOD CO OPERATIVE TOWN Vs. DIVAKARAN K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. The judgment under appeal is one issued by the learned Single Judge holding that salary paid to respondents could not be recovered after the elapse of several years. The grievance of the appellant is that delay in recovery is not attributable to the Bank and Government only delayed recovery by delaying decision on representation submitted by the employees for reconsideration of Government's order revoking the earlier order revising the pay.

(2.) The Government issued orders revising the pay scales of Urban Bank employees on 05/10/1990. However, orders were issued on 21/12/1996 again reducing the pay which led to need for recovery of excess payment made in the preceding years. When the Bank proceeded to recover the excess paid in 1997 itself, the employees approached this Court and got direction to the Government to reconsider the matter. Government kept the matter pending for quite sometime and thereafter rejected the claim of the employees. However, in between, several years have passed and when Bank tried to recover the amount again, Writ Petition was filed challenging the same. This Court ultimately vide judgment dated 06/11/2003 held that arrears paid should not be recovered. It is against this judgment appeal is filed by the Bank.

(3.) We find force in the contention of the appellant that delay in recovery is not attributable to the Bank and it is the delay in disposal of representation by the Government that delayed initiation of steps for recovery. Further, the Writ Petition itself was kept pending in this Court for more than 3 years. However, what we feel is that as of now several of the employees against whom recovery is to be initiated may have retired and gone. Further more, payments made pertain to 17 to 22 years back. We, therefore, feel it would be harsh to permit recovery against retired employees and those on the verge of retirement. Above all, the total amount involved is only around Rs.11 lakhs and we feel the Bank should forgo it in favour of it's own employees and retain their goodwill. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently Writ Appeal is dismissed.