Recovery Of Excess Payment From Lower-Rung Employees Violates Article 14: Patna HC Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Penalty On Child Development Project Officer

The Patna High Court has reiterated that recovering excess payments from employees in the lower service tiers, such as Class-III and Class-IV staff, is iniquitous and would place an undue burden on them, exceeding any reciprocal benefit to the employer. Justice Purnendu Singh, presiding over the matter, emphasised, “employees in lower rung of service would spend their entire earnings in the upkeep and welfare of their family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be recovered from them, it would cause them for more hardship, than the reciprocal gains to the employer.” “We are, therefore, satisfied in concluding that such recovery from employees belonging to the lower rungs of service, should not be subjected to the ordeal of any recovery, even though they were beneficiaries of receiving higher emoluments, than were due to them. The Court, drawing from Apex Court precedent and the pleadings in the writ petition, held that the respondents had played with the 'vital right of the petitioner' by recovering excess payments from her incremented salary despite her failure to clear the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, without explaining whether this action was lawful. At the same time, the Court also observed that the deliberate action of the Child Development Project Officer for recovery was not in accordance with law and the same process of recovery was initiated without providing her proper opportunity of hearing before passing such an order of recovery. The Court said, “In the similar way, the respondent no.5, the Medical Officer-cum-Incharge Primary Health Centre Bakhtiyarpur has shown his complete disregard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and has informed this Court in paragraph no.11 that “deduction has been made in compliance of the objection raised by the Principal Accountant General.” The Court expressed that the willfully misleading statements by the Medical Officer-In-Charge Primary Health Centre, the CDPO, and the Accountant General Audit warranted contempt proceedings.