Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1352 - SC - Indian LawsRecovery of excess money from the pensionary benefit of the Respondent-white washer - wrong fixation of pay - whether the Government is entitled to recover from an employee any payment made in excess of what the employee is otherwise entitled to, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee? - HELD THAT:- The observations made by the Court not to recover the excess amount paid to the Appellant-therein were in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which vest the power in this Court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case [2012 (8) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURT], a specific issue was raised and canvassed. The issue was whether the Appellant-therein can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The Court after taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that the excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered. Article 142 of the Constitution of India is supplementary in nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they are not limited by the substantive provisions in the statute. It is a power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice oriented approach as against the strict rigors of the law - The Court have compartmentalized and differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by exercise of powers Under Article 142 of the Constitution as against the law declared. The directions of the Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. This Court on the qui vive has expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the Constitution by keeping it outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution and by declaring it a direction of the Court that changes its complexion with the peculiarity in the facts and circumstances of the case - the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first two judgments and the latter judgment. Matters sent back to the Division Bench for its appropriate disposal.
|