The Calcutta High Court quashed a government recovery proceeding initiated almost two decades after the alleged overpayment of salary to an employee of the Indian Museum, holding that the State cannot remain dormant for an extended period before seeking recovery and then proceed belatedly without any cogent reason. The bench, presided over by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, was dealing with a petition filed by a former Museum employee challenging an order directing recovery of an amount of salary purportedly overpaid during his service, which had been initiated in 2024 despite the salary period in question dating back to the late 1990s and early 2000s. The employee had retired many years earlier, and the disputed recovery action was based on the State’s claim that excess salary had been drawn without justification.
The petitioner contended that the recovery process initiated after such a long interregnum violated principles of fairness and equity, pointing out that the State had remained silent for approximately two decades before taking action. He argued that the undue delay had prejudiced him, as records and evidence relating to the salary payments had long been misplaced, witnesses were unavailable, and his retirement benefits had long been disbursed. The petitioner further submitted that such prolonged inaction on the part of the State rendered the recovery proceedings stale and unsustainable. In opposition, the State maintained that the recovery was justified on the ground that there had been payment in excess of entitlement, and that the passage of time did not bar it from raising a claim to recover public funds.
Upon considering the submissions, the High Court observed that the State’s claim was based on the premise of overpayment, but noted the conspicuous delay in initiating recovery proceedings. The court emphasised that while the State has the authority to recover money wrongly paid, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time and cannot be allowed to remain dormant for an inordinate period without adequate explanation. The court remarked that a 20-year delay in taking action without sufficient justification amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it results in prejudice to the affected employee. The High Court noted that records relating to the period in question were no longer readily available due to the passage of time, making it difficult for the petitioner to effectively contest the claim.
In its analysis, the court held that an unreasonable delay by the State in initiating recovery proceedings, especially where the employee had long since retired, could not be countenanced. It observed that such delay undermines the very purpose of accountability and fairness that should govern administrative action, and that the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing was compromised by the prolonged inaction. The High Court further noted that there was no explanation offered by the respondent authorities for the significant hiatus between the alleged overpayment period and the commencement of recovery action, thereby weakening the State’s justification for invoking recovery provisions so belatedly.
Applying established legal principles concerning delay and latches, the court concluded that the recovery order could not stand in the absence of any plausible explanation for the delay and given the prejudice suffered by the petitioner. It held that the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence applied where inordinate delay by the State had effectively extinguished its right to pursue recovery after an unreasonable lapse of time, particularly where records essential for defence were unavailable to the employee. As a result, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned recovery proceedings and quashed the order directing recovery of the alleged overpaid salary.
In reaching its conclusion, the Calcutta High Court underscored that while the State is not precluded from seeking recovery of public money, long periods of inaction without sufficient reason and without advancing the matter diligently make the claim untenable. The court’s ruling reaffirmed that administrative actions must align with the standards of fairness and equity, and that delay prejudicial to an individual’s rights and ability to defend against allegations undermines the legitimacy of such actions. The judgment reflects the principle that an unreasonable delay on the part of the State in enforcing its rights can operate against it, particularly where it causes prejudice to an employee who has long completed his service and whose records and supporting evidence have consequently dissipated.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.