The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot order recovery of the amount of an employee while quashing the appointment as the denial of pay for the service rendered would amount to "impermissible" "forced labour".
"We are of the resolute opinion that even while issuing a writ of quo warranto, there cannot be any direction for recovery of the sum...," a bench of justices Anil R Dave and Dipak Misra said.
The bench, in its 59 page verdict, said "a judgment can be erroneous but when there is a direction for recovery of the honorarium, it indubitably creates a dent in the honour of a person. Honour once lost may be irredeemable or irresuscitable."
The court set aside the judgement of the Orisa High Court which, while deciding a PIL, had quashed the appointment of B C Jena as the CEO of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha (CESU) and also directed the PSU to recover the amount paid to Jena as honorarium.
"Even in a writ of quo warranto while declaring that a person is not eligible to hold the post had rendered service, we are disposed to think, there cannot be recovery of amount.
"While exercising the power for issue of writ of quo warranto, the court only makes a public declaration that the person holding the public office is a usurper and not eligible to hold the post and after the declaration is made he ceases to hold the office," it said adding that a person cannot be deprived of his salary as it would amount to forced labour which is impermissible.
The bench also dealt with the misuse of PILs and said the "judge-made law" should have been used for the benefits of the marginalised section of the society.
The bench said "we have thought it imperative to revisit certain authorities pertaining to public interest litigation, its abuses and the way (in which) sometimes the courts perceive the entire spectrum. It is an ingenious and adroit innovation of the judge-made law within the constitutional parameters and serves as a weapon for certain purposes.
"It is regarded as a weapon to mitigate grievances of the poor and the marginalized sections of the society and to check the abuse of power at the hands of the Executive and further to see that the necessitous law and order situation, which is the duty of the State, is properly sustained, the people in impecuniosity do not die of hunger, national economy is not jeopardized; rule of law is not imperiled; human rights not endangered, and probity, transparency and integrity in the governance remain in a constant state of stability. The use of the said weapon has to be done with care, caution and circumspection."
It said there is a difference between an individual interest and public interest ..."the court is required to see that the larger public interest and the basic concept pertaining to good governance are not thrown to the winds." Jena, who was earlier chairman of CESU, the distributor of electricity in the Central Zone of Odisha, was appointed CEO of CESU on March 31, 2010 and it was decided that he would enjoy all the perquisites/facilities as was being given to the earlier CEO except the monthly emoluments.
Later, the scheme was amended and the Commission fixed consolidated honorarium of Rs 70,000 per month, which was later challenged in the High Court in a PIL.
It was contended before the High Court that CESU was a government-owned company and it had become a rehabilitation centre for retired persons and deadwoods at the cost of public money.
The High Court quashed the appointment by terming it as "illegal" and directed recovery of the amount from Jena.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}