High Court Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana High Court Skill Test Samples!
Shorthand Dictation, Legal, Transcription No. 4,
80 WPM Dictation
100 WPM Dictation
120 WPM Dictation
This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar (supra) held as
follows: Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the
appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud
on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the
amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were
entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the
Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it
was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was
the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to
them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather,
the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and
carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers
submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or
are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the
appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount
that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be
made.
Premised on the legal proposition considered above, namely, whether
on the touchstone of equity and arbitrariness, the extract of the
judgment reproduced above, culls out yet another consideration, which
would make the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is
apparent from the conclusions drawn in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case
(supra), that recovery of excess payments, made from employees who
have retired from service, or are close to their retirement, would
entail extremely harsh consequences outweighing the monetary gains by
the employer. It cannot be forgotten, that a retired employee or an
employee about to retire, is a class apart from those who have
sufficient service to their credit, before their retirement. Needless
to mention, that at retirement, an employee is past his youth, his
needs are far in excess of what they were when he was younger.
Despite that, his earnings have substantially dwindled. Keeping the
aforesaid circumstances in mind, we are satisfied that recovery would
be iniquitous and arbitrary, if it is sought to be made after the
date of retirement, or soon before retirement. A period within one
year from the date of superannuation should be treated as iniquitous
as such.
Mr. Prem Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the
previous scale of Rs220-550 to which the appellant was entitled
became Rs 700-1600 since the appellant had been granted that scale of
pay in relaxation of the educational qualification. The High Court
was, therefore, not right in dismissing the writ petition. We do not
find any force in this contention. It is seen that the Government in
consultation with the University Grants Commission had revised the
pay scale of a Librarian working in the colleges to Rs 700- 1600 but
they insisted upon the minimum educational qualification of first or
second class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. plus a first or second class B.Lib.
Science or a Diploma in Library Science. Words
521
Transcription
80 WPM
This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar (supra) held as follows: Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.
Premised on the legal proposition considered above, namely, whether on the touchstone of equity and arbitrariness, the extract of the judgment reproduced above, culls out yet another consideration, which would make the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is apparent from the conclusions drawn in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra), that recovery of excess payments, made from employees who have retired from service, or are close to their retirement, would entail extremely harsh consequences outweighing the monetary gains by the employer. It cannot be forgotten, that a retired employee or an employee about to retire, is a class apart from those who have sufficient service to their credit, before their retirement. Needless to mention, that at retirement, an employee is past his youth, his needs are far in excess of what they were when he was younger. Despite that, his earnings have substantially dwindled. Keeping the aforesaid circumstances in mind, we are satisfied that recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary, if it is sought to be made after the date of retirement, or soon before retirement. A period within one year from the date of superannuation should be treated as iniquitous as such.
Mr. Prem Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the previous scale of Rs220-550 to which the appellant was entitled became Rs 700-1600 since the appellant had been granted that scale of pay in relaxation of the educational qualification. The High Court was, therefore, not right in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any force in this contention. It is seen that the Government in consultation with the University Grants Commission had revised the pay scale of a Librarian working in the colleges to Rs 700- 1600 but they insisted upon the minimum educational qualification of first or second class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. plus a first or second class B.Lib. Science or a Diploma in Library Science. Words 521
0 Comments