SHAMSUDDHIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner retired on 31.5.1999. He is aggrieved since a portion of the DCRG is withheld. Such withholding of the DCRG is as per Ext. P2. It is seen from Ext. P2 that there is an excess payment to the petitioner on two counts as follows:

(2.) Learned Special Government Pleader referring to R.3C of Part III KSR contends that if any payment is made by mistake, the Government is within its powers to recover such excess payment. The only restrictions are that it should not be for a period of four years prior to retirement, and that the excess payment should be detected within four years of retirement. R.3 reads as follows:

(3.) In the instant case, as can be seen from Ext. P2, the excess payment is for the period from 10.11.1986 to 13.10.1988,obviously during the period of four years prior to retirement, and the excess payment as subsistence allowance is during 1986, and that too, beyond the said period of four years. True, the excess payment is detected within four years of retirement, but that is not sufficient. The excess payment should be one made during the period of four years prior to retirement. Therefore, the objection is untenable. Learned Special Government Pleader contends that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner himself had given in writing agreeing to make the recovery. Even assuming so, if the recovery is otherwise impermissible, there is no justification in illegally extracting the benefits already granted to the Government servant who retired long back. So, that objection is also untenable.