Recovery of demonstrably duplicated remuneration is permissible where an employee impermissibly holds two posts simultaneously.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a recognised, grant-in-aid junior high school on 4 July 1981 and retired on attaining the age of 62 years on 31 March 2017.

He subsequently sought release of his pensionary and other retiral benefits. His claim was rejected on the ground that he had simultaneously worked in the Postal Department and the Basic Education Department.

The petitioner asserted that his Postal Department engagement was only as an Extra Departmental Agent/Branch Dakpal, for which he received a time-related continuity allowance or commission, and that he was never a regular postal employee.

After an earlier writ petition, the competent authority issued a show-cause notice and considered the petitioner’s reply.

By order dated 28 December 2018, the authority held that the petitioner had concealed his Postal Department engagement, simultaneously held two posts, and received remuneration from both establishments. It directed recovery of the amount allegedly received irregularly.

Whether the petitioner’s simultaneous engagement as a Branch Dakpal/Extra Departmental Agent and Assistant Teacher, and his receipt of remuneration from both establishments, rendered the appointment or remuneration legally impermissible?

Whether the impugned recovery order was vitiated by violation of natural justice because the material relied upon by the authorities was allegedly not supplied to the petitioner?

Whether proceedings concerning recovery of remuneration or retiral benefits could be initiated or continued after the petitioner’s retirement in the absence of a specific enabling statutory provision?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to retain the remuneration paid to him, or whether recovery could be made of the amount attributable to impermissible duplicate drawal?

The Court applied the service conditions governing teachers under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, and the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978.

It considered the Postal Department circular and Clause 13 of the Postal Gramin Dak Sevak Niyamawali, 1994, under which school teachers could be engaged as Extra Departmental Agents only in exceptional circumstances and with the requisite approval.

The Court relied on R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105, and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahiya, (2008) 13 SCC 170, for the principle that fraud or established material misrepresentation cannot be validated merely by long continuance in service.

The Court distinguished Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C., (1999) 3 SCC 666, and Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, (2014) 7 SCC 260, which concern initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement without statutory authority.

The Court also applied State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, concerning equitable limits on recovery of excess payments; High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, concerning recovery where an undertaking exists; D.D. Suri v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 553, concerning impermissible simultaneous remuneration for two posts; and Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 726, and Sushil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC OnLine All 1279, for the principle that remuneration for work actually taken cannot ordinarily be recovered merely because the appointment was irregular.

The governing rule was that recovery could be sustained only to the extent demonstrably attributable to impermissible duplicate remuneration, and not as an indiscriminate recovery of all salary paid for services actually rendered.

The Court found that the petitioner’s own statement before the Postal Department showed that he was regularly discharging Dakpal duties, which was materially inconsistent with his subsequent assertion that he was merely a commission-based agent.

The Court held that the later Postal Department order could not erase or neutralise that statement, and that the petitioner was required to make a full and candid disclosure of facts relevant to his entitlement to hold the teaching post and draw salary.

Accordingly, the respondents’ conclusion was not based merely on missing records or administrative inference but on the petitioner’s own statement coupled with the admitted overlapping engagements.

The plea of violation of natural justice failed because the petitioner had received a show-cause notice, submitted a reply, and had his defence considered; an adverse decision does not itself establish denial of hearing.

The Court also rejected the retirement objection, holding that the proceedings had commenced while the petitioner was still in service, so the principles in Bhagirathi Jena and Dev Prakash Tewari concerning proceedings initiated after retirement were not mechanically applicable.

However, the Court distinguished between recovery of duplicate remuneration and recovery of the entire salary paid for work actually performed.

Even if the simultaneous holding of posts was impermissible, the State could recover only the amount accurately shown to have been received in duplicate during the overlapping period.

It could not recover remuneration representing services actually rendered in a post for which the petitioner was otherwise legally entitled to be paid.

It upheld the respondents’ authority to recover remuneration attributable to the petitioner’s impermissible simultaneous holding of posts and duplicate drawal.

However, the recovery was required to remain confined to the demonstrable amount received for the overlapping engagements, after accurate determination of the relevant period and amount; the respondents could not indiscriminately recover the entire salary paid for services actually rendered.

No order as to costs was made.