PANAJI
A Goa Human Rights Commission inquiry has held that a retired government employee cannot be made to bear the financial burden of a departmental pay-fixation error when he had neither misrepresented facts nor committed fraud.
The inquiry report, issued following a complaint by Upper Division Clerk Bhagyawan Korgaonkar, termed the recovery of Rs 1.12 lakh from his gratuity impermissible in law and held that it violated his human rights.
The Commission of Member Pramod Kamat made a strong observation on Friday while recommending that the Water Resources Department refund Rs 1,12,680 deducted from the complainant's gratuity along with 6 per cent simple interest starting November 1, 2025 till final payment.
Korgaonkar retired from government service on October 31, 2025. His Pension Payment Order, issued on March 10, 2026, showed that Rs 1,12,680 was recovered from his gratuity, following which he approached the Commission seeking intervention. The application contended that the deduction was made without his consent and hence, he should get a refund.
In its reply, the department submitted to the Commission that the recovery related to an extra increment paid to Korgaonkar. “The Directorate of Accounts pointed out the excess payment and sought recovery from his gratuity,” it said. However, the Commission noted that although the department claimed Korgaonkar’s consent was obtained, no document was produced to support the claim.
The Commission relied on a Supreme Court’s ruling, observing that recovery from retired employees is impermissible in circumstances recognised by the court, particularly where excess payment was not caused by fraud or misrepresentation on the employee’s part.
The Commission’s inquiry also underlined the hardship such recoveries can cause to lower-rung government employees who plan their family expenses and retirement on the basis of the salary and benefits paid to them by the government.
“A retired employee, especially one from Class-III or Class-IV service, should not be penalised for a mistake committed by the employer decades ago... where the employee had neither misrepresented nor committed fraud, recovery after retirement would ordinarily be harsh, inequitable and legally unsustainable,” it said.
The Commission also cautioned departments against treating undertakings or indemnity bonds obtained from employees as an automatic licence to recover alleged excess payments. It said the circumstances in which such undertakings were obtained, including whether they were voluntary and whether the employee had any real choice, had to be examined.
The report recommended that the amount be refunded within 30 days, with 6 per cent simple interest from November 1, 2025, and that concerned authorities submit their comments, including the action taken or proposed to be taken, by October 12.
