High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed
Krishnankutty R, Antony P and Vikraman Nair K v. The State of Kerala, Regional Cancer Centre, Director RCC, Controller of Finance, Accounts Officer RCC and Executives Committee for RCC and others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 36388 of 2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V
- Judgment Date
- 2023-10-12
- Court Decision / Holding
- In view of the discussion and the observations in Exts. P12 and P13 judgments, the petition is allowed. Exts. P8, P9, P9(a), P16, P16(a) and P16(b) are quashed. The respondents are held not entitled to recover any amount as excess payments from retirement benefits by refixing the petitioners’ pay after retirement. It is declared that such recovery, without notice, is illegal. The respondents are directed to disburse the full amount of gratuity, pension and earned leave surrender benefits to the petitioners within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with 6% interest for delayed payment from the date it became due.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Krishnankutty R
- Antony P
- Vikraman Nair K
Respondents
- The State of Kerala
- Regional Cancer Centre
- The Director, Regional Cancer Centre
- The Controller of Finance
- The Accounts Officer
- The Executive Committee for Regional Cancer Centre
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • D. Kishore
- • Meeragopinath
- • R. Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Adv Athul Shaji
Case Synopsis & Summary
Three Class-IV employees of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram, retired in 2019-2020, approach Kerala High Court challenging non-disbursement of terminal benefits and orders recovering alleged excess pay drawn during service. They had received assessment promotions under TBGP and promotions under FCP & LP, with enhanced pay during service. After retirement, a three‑member committee examined pay fixation anomalies and prepared a report, following which provisional pension sanctions were issued. The petitioners allege that pay fixation and subsequent downward refixation were done without notice, and that recovery orders—issued several years after retirement—are illegal and violative of Supreme Court jurisprudence. They rely on the principle that retirement benefits must be fixed on the last drawn pay and that recovery from gratuity cannot be undertaken unless lawfully permitted. They cite Supreme Court decisions in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Susheel Kumar Singhal to support their stance and point to earlier judgments in this Court (Ext. P12 and Ext. P13) allowing refunds, including in W.P.(C) 6804/2021 and W.P.(C) 26072/2020, which were subsequently challenged in appeals. The respondents contend the three‑member committee’s findings justify the recovery and argue Jagdev Singh applies. The court ultimately agrees with the petitioners, holding unilateral fixation without notice illegal and applying Rafiq Masih, quashing the recovery orders and directing full payment of gratuity, pension, and earned leave surrender benefits with interest if delayed.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) – principles on retirement benefits and recovery of excess payments, requiring notice and lawful fixation.
- Susheel Kumar Singhal – corroborating authority on similar retirement-benefit recoveries.
- Jagdev Singh (supra) – treated as not applicable to the present facts.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that recovery of excess payments drawn ten years prior to retirement, based on a committee report and a unilateral re-fixation of pay without prior notice or opportunity, is illegal and contrary to established law. They contend that terminal benefits must be computed on the last drawn pay, and that past disbursements were made under existing regulations. Relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Susheel Kumar Singhal, they argue that recovery cannot be effected from gratuity and retirement benefits except in strict compliance with due process. They point to Exts. P12 and P13 judgments of this Court (and similar outcomes in W.P.(C) 6804/2021 and W.P.(C) 26072/2020) as supportive authorities, and contend that unilateral re-fixation without notice is barred. The respondents’ reliance on the three‑member committee’s report and Jagdev Singh is misplaced, as authorities in a similar context have laid down protective principles for retirees.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the three‑member committee identified pay anomalies and the resulting fixation and recovery were based on a legitimate administrative process. They rely on judgments including Jagdev Singh to justify retrospective adjustments and recovery, and point out that some petitioners gave undertakings permitting recovery of excess amounts. They rely on the earlier Single Judge decisions and the contention that recovery of excess payments is legally permissible in appropriate circumstances, especially when undertaken after notice and in accordance with due process. They counter the petitioners’ reliance on Rafiq Masih and Susheel Kumar Singhal by asserting the facts justify the post‑retirement rectifications and recovery, in line with the committee’s recommendations and the RCC’s financial governance.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) | 2015 (4) SCC 334 | Positive | Court applied the Rafiq Masih principles to retirement-benefit recoveries, supporting protection of employees' terminal benefits. |
| Susheel Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Ors. | 2014 (16) SCC 444 | Positive | Judicially supports the protective stance on recoveries of excess pay; cited to substantiate the petitioners’ position. |
| High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh | 2016 KHC 6515 | Overruled | Court held Jagdev Singh would have no application to these facts; not controlling authority here. |
| W.P.(C) 26072/2020 | W.P.(C) 26072/2020 | Positive | Earlier similar matter quashed recovery; cited in Ext.P12 Ext.P13 line of authority. |
| W.P.(C) 6804/2021 and connected cases | W.P.(C) 6804/2021 | Positive | Earlier decisions allowing refunds cited as supportive precedents. |
| W.A.No. 869/2022 and connected cases | W.A.No. 869/2022 | Mentioned Only | Division Bench decision mentioned in the context of the Jagdev Singh dispute; not treated as controlling authority here. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Krishnankutty R, Antony P and Vikraman Nair K v. The State of Kerala, Regional Cancer Centre, Director RCC, Controller of Finance, Accounts Officer RCC and Executives Committee for RCC and others 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 20TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 36388 OF 2022`**
## **`PETITIONERS:`**
```
1KRISHNANKUTTYR
AGED63YEARS
S/O.RAMANPILLAI,SENIORHELPER,NONACADEMIC(RETIRED),
REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDINGAT
'EZHUTHANIPUTHENVEEDU,THIRUVALLOMP.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695027.
2ANTONYP,
AGED63YEARS,S/O.V.J.PAKYANATHAN,DESPATCHER(NON
ACADEMIC)(RETIRED),REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDINGAT'ANTONYBHAVAN',
NEARST.MARY'SSCHOOL,PULIYARAKONAMP.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-573.
3VIKRAMANNAIR.K,
AGED63YEARS,S/O.KESAVANPILLAISENIORANIMALHOUSE
KEEPER(RETIRED),REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDINGAT'V.S.BHAVAN',MANAVALI,
ANAVOORP.O.,PERUNKADAVILA,NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695124.
BYADVS.
D.KISHORE
MEERAGOPINATH
R.MURALEEKRISHNAN(MALAKKARA)
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
```
1THESTATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARYTOGOVERNMENT,HEALTHAND
FAMILYWELFAREDEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2THEREGIONALCANCERCENTRE,
REPRESENTEDBYITSDIRECTOR,MEDICALCOLLEGEP.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
3THEDIRECTOR,
REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,MEDICALCOLLEGEP.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
4THECONTROLLEROFFINANCE,
REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,MEDICALCOLLEGEP.O.,
```
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF20222
```
```
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
```
```
5THEACCOUNTSOFFICER,
REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,MEDICALCOLLEGEP.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
```
```
6THEEXECUTIVECOMMITTEEFORREGIONALCANCERCENTRE,
REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMAN,REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,
MEDICALCOLLEGEP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
```
```
BYADVATHULSHAJI
```
```
THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
12.10.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
```
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
3
```
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioners are Class-IV employees who, after having served for decades in the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, attained superannuation on 31.5.2020, 31.5.2020 and 31.5.2019 respectively. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the non-disbursement of their terminal benefits. The petitioners have also challenged the orders issued by the respondents ordering the recovery of excess pay alleged to have been drawn by them.
2. According to the petitioners, they were granted assessment promotions on the completion of 5 and 8 years under the Time Bound Grade Promotion (TBGP) Scheme. They were also granted promotion under the Flexible Complementing and Ladder Promotion (FCP & LP) Scheme. They were also granted enhanced pay in the course of their unblemished service. They state that a three-member committee was appointed to find out the anomalies in the pay fixation and to submit a report. After the retirement of the petitioners, provisional pension sanction orders were issued based on the pay fixation in tune with the recommendations of the three-member committee. The petitioners noticed that such an action had the effect of lowering the pay scale of the petitioners, ignoring the benefits granted earlier. The 2nd respondent granted sanction for recovering the amounts
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
4
```
paid allegedly in excess. According to the petitioners, no notice was granted to the petitioners, and their explanations were not sought. According to the petitioners, the recovery of excess pay drawn by the petitioners 10 years prior to their retirement and from their gratuity is illegal and violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
3. It is in the above backdrop that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts. P8, P9, P9(a), P16, P16(a) and P16(b) orders to the extent it reduces the pay of the petitioners and for a declaration that the amounts alleged to have been drawn by the petitioners due to erroneous fixation of pay cannot be recovered from the gratuity or otherwise. They have also sought for issuance of directions to disburse the full amount of gratuity, pension and earned leave surrender benefits with accrued interest.
4. Sri. D. Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the entire action on the part of the respondents in attempting to recover the alleged excess payments made ten years prior to their retirement cannot be sustained under law. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have the right to get their pay and terminal benefits fixed on the basis of the last drawn pay. He would urge that the amounts were disbursed on the strength of the various regulations and orders that were in vogue at the time, and therefore, the contention that excess amounts were paid that too based on a report of a committee cannot be sustained under law. It is pointed out that no notice was ever issued to the petitioners before the alleged re-fixation or while lowering their pay scale.
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
5
```
The learned counsel would also refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in **State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)** [(2015) 4 SCC 334], **Susheel Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Ors.** [(2014) 16 SCC 444] to substantiate his contention. It is further submitted that employees similarly placed as the petitioners had approached this Court complaining of recovery of excess pay and non-disbursement of benefits, and a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6804/2021 and connected cases had allowed those petitions by judgment dated 23.12.2021. It is further submitted that following the above judgment, a learned Single Judge had considered W.P.(C) No. 26072/2020 and by judgment dated 23.3.2022 (produced as Ext.P12), this Court had quashed the orders demanding recovery of excess amount and ordered refund. Though the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges were challenged before the Division Bench by Ext.P13 in W.A.No. 869/2022 and connected cases (judgment dated 21.7.2022), had dismissed the appeal, holding that no interference is warranted.
5. In response, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that a three-member committee was formed to look into the anomalies, and it is based on the report submitted by them that steps were taken to recover the excess pay given. He would reiterate that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh** [2016 KHC 6515] would apply as some of the petitioners have given an undertaking permitting to recover amounts paid in excess.
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
6
```
6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records.
7. I find that the case of the petitioners is identical to the matters considered by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P12 judgment and which was the subject matter of Ext.P13 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench had held that the action on the part of the respondents in refixing the pay and attempting to recover the amounts on the basis of unilateral fixation done without notice to the retired employees is plainly illegal. This Court had also held that the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in **Rafiq Masih** (supra) would squarely apply in the facts and circumstances. The Division Bench had considered the contention that the principles of law laid down in **Jagdev Singh** (supra) would apply and it was held that the above judgment would have no application. It was also held that the recovery is plainly barred going by the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Having considered the sequence of events, the facts of the instant case and the contention of the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the observations and findings rendered by this Court in Exhibit P12 and P13 judgments clearly apply to the facts of the instant case. The respondents are not entitled to recover the alleged excess amounts paid to the petitioners herein in view of the law laid down in **Rafiq Masih** (supra).
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
7
```
8. In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Exts. P8, P9, P9(a), P16, P16(a) and P16(b) are quashed. It is declared that the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount as excess payments allegedly paid to the petitioners from their retirement benefits by refixing the pay of the petitioners by altering the last drawn pay after their retirement. The respondents are directed to disburse the full amount of gratuity, pension and earned leave surrender benefits to the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date on which it is due till actual payment.
Sd/-
**RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE**
```
Sru
```
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
8
```
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36388/2022`**
|`PETITIONERS EXHIBITS`||
|---|---|
|`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5570/98/ADMN.I/RCC`|
||`DATED 21.1.1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO`|
||`THE 1ST PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5570/98/ADMN.1/RCC`|
||`DATED 24.2.1999 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE`|
||`ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF RCC TO THE 1ST`|
||`PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1200/ADMN-11/2019/`|
||`RCC DATED 7.8.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED`|
||`TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RCC/472/2019-ADMN-2`|
||`DATED 30.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO`|
||`THE 1ST PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RCC/404/2020-ADMN-2`|
||`DATED 31.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO`|
||`THE 2ND PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RCC/404/2020-ADMN-2`|
||`DATED 4.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO`|
||`THE 2ND PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RCC/433/2019-ADMN-4`|
||`DATED 31.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO`|
||`THE 3RD PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P7(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RCC/NO.`|
||`1149/ADMN-IV/2019 DATED 17.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE`|
||`3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.`|
||`RCC/849/2020-FIN 2020-21 DATED 25.3.2021 ISSUED`|
||`BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO. RCC/768/2020-FIN-E`|
||`DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
||`TO THE 2ND PETITIONER REGARDING THE EARNED`|
||`LEAVE SURRENDER.`|
|`Exhibit P9(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO. RCC/768/2020-FIN-E`|
||`DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
9
```
|||`TO THE 2ND PETITIONER REGARDING THE RETIREMENT`|
|---|---|---|
|||`GRATUITY.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTION ORDER ISSUED`|
|||`BY THE CHAIRMAN REPS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TO`|
|||`THE 3RD PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED 28.5.2020`|
|||`EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P11(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED 27.5.2020`|
|||`EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P11(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED 3.10.2019`|
|||`EXECUTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2022 IN`|
|||`WPC 26072/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.7.2022 IN`|
|||`WRIT APPEAL 869/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES OF`|
|||`THIS HONOURABLE COURT.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.2022 IN`|
|||`W.P.(C) 25964/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P14(A)`|`TUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.2022 IN`|
|||`W.P.(C) 25616 2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P14(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.4.2022 IN`|
|||`W.P.C 14487/2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.`|
|`Exhibit `|`P15`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE`|
|||`REPRESENTATION DATED 3.9.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE`|
|||`1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|||`(WITHOUT ANNEXURES).`|
|`Exhibit `|`P15(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE`|
|||`REPRESENTATION DATED 3.9.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE`|
|||`2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|||`(WITHOUT ANNEXURES).`|
|`Exhibit `|`P15(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE`|
|||`REPRESENTATION DATED 12.8.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE`|
|||`3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|||`(WITHOUT ANNEXURES).`|
|`Exhibit `|`P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RCC/DO/OR 19/2022`|
|||`DATED 27.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
```
WP(C)NO.36388OF2022
```
```
10
```
```
TOTHE1STPETITIONER.
```
```
ExhibitP16(A)TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.RCC/DO/OR16/2022
DATED28.10.2022ISSUEDBYTHE3RDRESPONDENT
TOTHE2NDPETITIONER.
```
```
ExhibitP16(B)TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.RCC/DO/OR18/2022
DATED28.10.2022ISSUEDBYTHE3RDRESPONDENT
TOTHE3RDPETITIONER.
```