High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-30Writ petition allowed

ANZAR A., REJI TOM LAL, PRADEEP S.R., SUMAN P.S. v UNION OF INDIA, THE DIRECTOR STATE PROJECT TEQILITATION UNIT, KERALA (TEQUIP), DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THE DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON, KOLLAM, AND THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, PUNNAPRA

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: Exts. P10, P12 and P14 are quashed; the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to disburse the deducted amounts to the petitioners as reflected in Exts. P16–P19, within one month from receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ANZAR A.
REJI TOM LAL
PRADEEP S.R.
SUMAN P.S.

Respondents

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001
THE DIRECTOR STATE PROJECT FECILITATION UNIT, KERALA (TEQUIP), DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023
THE DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COOPERATION BANK TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601
THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, PUNNAPRA, AKSHARA NAGARI, VADACKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU TK

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. P.L.VENUKUMAR
• SRI.M.SASINDRAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

Four petitioners, employed as librarians and tradesmen at the College of Engineering, Perumon, Kollam, challenge orders Exts. P10, P12 and P14 directing recovery of amounts allegedly overpaid for a Moodle Course Management System workshop funded under TEQIP II. The May 2014 workshop charged Rs 35,000; petitioners sought and obtained permission to attend, with expenditure to be met from TEQIP II funds (FSD head). An advance of Rs 1,54,000 was sanctioned on 9 May 2014. In a TEQUIP meeting on 13 May 2015 attendance was recommended. An audit objection in July 2014 questioned the sanction of the advance, and recovery proceedings ensued; petitioners repaid Rs 10,572. They contend there was no fault on their part and rely on the Supreme Court’s State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, arguing recoveries in such circumstances are impermissible. Respondents maintain the expenditure was inadmissible and recoverable; the sanctioning authority was unaware of expensive gadgets provided to participants, and there was no violation of Section 7 of TEQIP Phase II Project Implementation Plan. The learned Judge found procedure followed, excess payments repaid, and the recoveries unjust, enumerating five circumstances where recoveries would be impermissible. Ultimately, Exts. P10, P12, P14 were quashed; the writ petition was allowed, and refunds were ordered within one month.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 7 of the Project Implementation Plan of Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme Phase II

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Excess amount paid to an employee without any fault of the employee cannot be recovered.
Five enumerated circumstances where recoveries would be impermissible: (i) Recovery from Class-III/Group C and D employees; (ii) Recovery from retired employees or those due to retire within one year; (iii) Recovery when excess payment has been made for a period beyond five years; (iv) Recovery where an employee has performed duties of a higher post and been paid accordingly; (v) In any other case where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary to outweigh the employer’s right to recover.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) principle cited in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the workshop attendance was explicitly sanctioned, with TEQIP II funds designated to cover course fees, admissible TA and DA. An advance of Rs. 1,54,000 was issued and later, when an audit objection arose (July 2014), excess amounts were repaid (Rs. 10,572). They contend there was no fault on their part and rely on the Supreme Court’s dictum in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334 to assert that recoveries in such circumstances are impermissible. They contends that TEQIP II guidelines permit course fees and allowances and the sanctioning process was properly followed. They urge the Court to quash Exs. P10, P12, P14 and to direct refund of deducted amounts with no harassment or hardship to the petitioners.

Contentions of Respondents

Counsel for respondents argued that the workshop expenditure was inadmissible and the recovery is warranted in light of the audit objection. The sanctioning authority was reportedly unaware of the expensive gadgets provided to participants, and there was no violation of Section 7 of the TEQIP II Project Implementation Plan. They maintain that the expenditure falls outside permissible TEQIP II funding and that the recovery is a legitimate remedy to rectify the misallocation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)	(2015) 4 SCC 334	Positive	The High Court relies on the Supreme Court’s dictum that recoveries from employees for excess payments made due to oversight, where the employee bears no fault, are impermissible; this supports quashing recovery orders.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ANZAR A., REJI TOM LAL, PRADEEP S.R., SUMAN P.S. v UNION OF INDIA, THE DIRECTOR STATE PROJECT TEQILITATION UNIT, KERALA (TEQUIP), DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THE DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON, KOLLAM, AND THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, PUNNAPRA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |1|ANZAR A.| |---|---| ||LIBRARIAN GRADE-IV, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON,| ||PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.| |2|REJI TOM LAL| ||LIBRARIAN GRADE-IV, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON,| ||PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.| |3|PRADEEP S.R.| ||TRADESMAN, (DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND| ||COMMUNICATIONS), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON,| ||PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.| |4|SUMAN P.S.| ||TRADESMAN, (DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND| ||COMMUNICATION), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT,| ||PUNNAPRA, AKSHARA NAGARI, VADACKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA| ||DISTRICT-688 003.| ||BY ADV SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR STATE PROJECT FECILITATION UNIT, KERALA (TEQUIP), DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. 3 THE DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COOPERATION BANK TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033. **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **2** 4 THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM691 601. 5 THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, PUNNAPRA, AKSHARA NAGARI, VADACKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. BY ADVS. SRI.P.L.VENUKUMAR, CGC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.SASINDRAN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **==> picture [78 x 31] intentionally omitted <==** SR GP SRI BIMAL K NATH , SRI P VIJAYAKUMAR ASGI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners, 4 (four) in number, in the present writ petition, assailed the orders Exts.P10, P12 and P14, whereby the amount has been recovered on the basis of audit objection 2. Petitioners while working under the 4[th] respondent ie., the Principal, College of Engineering, Kollam attended National Workshop on Moodle Course Management System organised by the Fr. Sales Library Sacred Heart College, Thevara druing May, 2014. The object of the workshop was to familiarize participants with the concept of Moodle and to help the participants to develop necessary skills in installation, server and client configuration. The registration fee for attending the workshop was Rs.35,000/-. Petitioners interested in undergoing the workshop, submitted a representation, which was acceded by 4[th] respondent and while granting permission it was stated that the expenditure would be met from the head of account 'FSD' of TEQIP II (Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme) fund in the current financial year, Ext.P5. The said program was **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **4** sponsored by first respondent ie., Union of India. Vide Ext.P6 dated 9.5.2014 a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- was sanctioned by the 4[th] respondent as advance. In the meeting held on 13.5.2015 at TEQUIP office has recommended to allow the petitioners to attend the training programme. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the amount received by the petitioners was in excess and an amount of Rs.10,572/- was repaid. In July 2014, an audit objection was raised with regard to the sanctioning of advance to the petitioners and ultimately led to recovery which necessitated the petitioners to approach this Court. This Court vide order dated 15.10.2015 admitted the writ petition and stayed the recovery. There was no fault of the petitioners in attending the Workshop as there were permitted to attend the course and the recovery is wholly unjustified and illegal in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in _**State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334]**_ . Petitioners are either Librarian or Tradesman, it is very difficult for them with **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **5** meagre salary to make both ends meet. As per TEQI Program, the petitioners were entitled for Course fees, admissible TA and DA but no adherence was made. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent opposed the aforementioned submissions on the premise that the expenditure incurred for the Workshop was inadmissible and it is on that background recovery was being effected. The sanctioning authority was not aware of the expensive gadgets given to the participants during Workshop. There was no violation of the provisions of Section 7 of the Project Implementation Plan of Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme Phase II. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The facts noticed above are not in dispute. The proper procedure was followed, as on the representation decision was taken and advance was also released and excess amount were repaid. It is settled law that excess amount paid to the employee without any fault of the employee cannot be recovered _de hore_ of the audit objection. **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **6** ## The observation of mine is derived from Para 18 of the judgment cited supra. The same reads as under: _18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:_ _(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and ClassIV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service)._ _(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery._ _(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued._ _(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post._ _(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover._ I am of the view that the action of the respondents in seeking the recovery from the salary was wholly irrational and illegal. Exts. Exts.P10, P12 and P14 are quashed. Writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to disburse the **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **7** deducted amount to the petitioners as reflected in Exts.P16, P17, P18 and P19, as early as possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Sd/- sab **AMIT RAWAL** **JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31361/2015** PETITIONER EXHIBITS **==> picture [38 x 565] intentionally omitted <==** P1 : COPY OF THE BROCHURE. P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD.7.5.2014 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS. P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.7.5.2014 PREFERRED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.7.5.2014 PREFERRED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.9.5.2014. P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF THE ACADEMIC MINUTES BOOK. P8 : COPY OF THE RELEVAT EXTRACT OF THE VIIITH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS. P9 : COPY OF THE STOCK REGISTER. P10: COPY OF THE AUDIT NOTE DTD.24.7.2014. P11: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.24.7.2014. P12: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.25.8.2014. P13: COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.3.9.2014. P14: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.22.7.2015. **WP(C) NO. 31361 OF 2015** **9** **==> picture [38 x 181] intentionally omitted <==** P15: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME PHASE-II. P16: COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P17: COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P18: COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. P19: COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. R3(A) : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.140/SPFU/GOK/2013 DATED 8.10.2014