K PALANIAMMAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the 1st respondent dated 13.5.2003 by which the 1st respondent has directed recovery of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner from 1.1.1996 till the date of the said order. THE calculation, which is annexed to the impugned order, in fact, shows that the excess amount sought to be recovered is from 1989-1990 onwards.

(3.) LAW is well-settled that in cases where refixation of salary is made, not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, it is not open to the employer to recover the amount, especially if the employee had been allowed to retire. In Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana and Others (1995 Supp(1) SCC 18), the Supreme Court was considering the case of upgraded pay scale of a Librarian in a College, who was, admittedly, not possessing the qualification as prescribed by the University Grants Commission. In normal circumstances, he would not be entitled for relaxation of the required qualification. However, the Principal of the College, under whom the Librarian was working, by error, granted relaxation and ultimately, based on the same, revised scale of salary was paid to him. It was, in those circumstances, that the Supreme Court held as hereunder: