Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court in Smt. Draupati Devi v. Union of India and Others adjudicated upon the impermissibility of recovery of alleged excess payments made to a government employee and directed the release of leave encashment dues with interest. Justice Jyoti Singh while adjudicating the case, appled the principles of equity as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334.

The petitioner, sought the release of ₹9 lakhs withheld from her deceased husband’s leave encashment. Her husband, Late Rajiv Kumar Gupta, served as an Associate Professor at Shri Guru Nanak Dev Khalsa College and passed away in May 2021 due to COVID-19. The petitioner contended that recovery was initiated for alleged excess payment due to an erroneous pay fixation from 2001, despite her husband’s lack of opportunity to contest the decision.

After her husband's demise, the petitioner repeatedly pursued her entitlement to retiral benefits. The recovery claim emerged posthumously, alleging wrongful "stepping up" of pay under the University of Delhi's directive.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that:

1. Recovery after 20 years of alleged overpayment was inequitable and contrary to established legal principles.
2. Withholding leave encashment—a retiral benefit—caused undue hardship, especially as the petitioner was coping with the loss of her husband and son within a short period.
3. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rafiq Masih prohibits recovery in cases involving excessive delay or when it would be iniquitous to demand repayment.

Counsel for the college and University of Delhi admitted the delay in processing the case. While the college supported the petitioner’s claim and sought waiver of recovery from the Ministry of Education, no substantive action had been taken due to bureaucratic inertia.

The court noted the protracted delay and lack of decisive action by the authorities. Justice Jyoti Singh remarked:

“…this is a textbook case where the files have been moving from one department to the other without any action from 2021 till date, only to take a decision with respect to waiver of recovery of amounts allegedly paid in excess to Petitioner’s husband on account of stepping up of his pay.”

The court found that initiating recovery posthumously, after a prolonged period of over 20 years, was contrary to the equitable principles established by the Supreme Court. It ruled that the recovery violated the principle of equity and fairness, particularly when the petitioner was already facing significant personal hardship.

The court relied on Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and other precedents to outline situations where recovery is impermissible:

1. Recovery from retired employees or those nearing retirement.
2. Recovery of excess payments made over a period exceeding five years.
3. Cases where recovery is inequitable or causes undue hardship.

Applying these principles, the court concluded that the recovery in the present case was legally unsustainable.

The court quashed the recovery order and directed the college to release the withheld leave encashment dues to the petitioner within six weeks, along with interest at 6% per annum from the due date to the date of payment.

Case Title: Smt. Draupati Devi v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) 8675/2022
Bench Details: Justice Jyoti Singh

[Read/Download order]