Panaji: The Goa Human Rights Commission has held that the deduction of ₹1,12,680 from the gratuity of a retired Group-C government employee was impermissible in law, and has recommended that the amount be refunded with 6% annual interest.
The order was passed on September 11, 2026, in Proceeding No. 43/2026 following a complaint filed by Bhagyawan S. Korgaonkar, a retired Upper Division Clerk who had sought the refund of the amount deducted from his retirement gratuity.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Korgaonkar retired from government service on October 31, 2025. According to the complaint, he discovered the deduction when he received his Pension Payment Order dated March 10, 2026. The amount had reportedly been recovered on the grounds that an extra increment had been paid to him.
During the proceedings, a representative of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, stated that the recovery related to an extra increment paid to the complainant. An Assistant Accounts Officer also submitted that the recovery had been made in accordance with the law.
However, the Commission examined the submissions, documents and relevant Supreme Court judgments and found that the recovery could not be sustained.
Commission Relies on Supreme Court Judgments
The Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Others, which held that excess payments made due to an employer’s error, and not because of fraud or misrepresentation by an employee, are generally not recoverable in circumstances where such recovery would cause hardship.
It also relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, which identified circumstances in which recovery of excess payments would be impermissible, including recovery from Group-C and Group-D employees and retired employees.
The Commission further referred to recent judicial decisions, including rulings concerning post-retirement recovery and the requirement to follow principles of natural justice before making deductions from employees’ retirement benefits.
No Evidence of Consent Produced
The Commission noted that the department had claimed that the complainant’s consent had been obtained for the recovery. However, it observed that no document supporting this claim was produced before the Commission.
In view of the circumstances, the Commission concluded that the deduction of ₹1,12,680 from Korgaonkar’s gratuity after his retirement was impermissible in law and violated his human rights.
Refund With 6% Interest Recommended
The Commission has recommended that the concerned respondent refund the entire ₹1,12,680 to Korgaonkar within 30 days, along with simple interest at 6% per annum from November 1, 2025, the day following his retirement, until the date of final payment.
Under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission has also directed that a copy of the inquiry report and its recommendations be sent to the concerned authorities for their comments and details of the action taken or proposed.
The respondents have been asked to submit their comments and action-taken report within 30 days or by October 12, 2026.
