Supreme Court asks ex-judge to return excess salary drawn

A former judge has been directed by the Supreme Court to refund Rs1.22 lakh to the high court after it found that he had drawn the excess amount towards salary and allowance prior to his retirement.

The apex court has directed the Punjab and Haryana High Court to recover the money from Jagdev Singh, who was appointed as civil judge since 1987 in a trial court, on installments in two years time.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur rejected Singh's argument that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state.

"This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted," the bench also comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud said.
Singh was placed under suspension on August 19, 2002 and subsequently he was compulsorily retired from service on February 12, 2003.

In 1989, the high court had accepted the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission). Later, the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2003 were notified on May 7, 2003.

On February 18, 2004, a letter for the recovery of an amount of Rs 1,22,003 was served upon Singh pursuant to the direction of the high court Registrar.
Singh had challenged the notice in the same high court, which allowed his plea on the ground that the excess payment made to him towards salary and allowance prior to his retirement could not be recovered at that stage, there being no fraud or misrepresentation on his part.

The Supreme Court while setting aside the order has recorded that it is evident that when Singh opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by Singh in the court, this position has been specifically admitted.