A petitioner challenged a memorandum issued by the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) seeking to recover Rs.48,000/- paid as Children’s Educational Allowance (CEA). The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk with a son suffering from Cerebral Palsy, received reimbursement for her son's Bachelor of Business Administration tuition fees. The CCP, after receiving an audit report, deemed the reimbursement irregular, arguing the CEA scheme only covers up to Class XII. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing no misrepresentation or fraud in her application and highlighting the significant delay in the CCP's demand for recovery. The court quashed the memorandum.

1. Parties and Initial Proceedings

• Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kamat for the Petitioner, Mr. Somnath Karpe for Respondent No.1, and Mr. Sarvadnya D. Patil for Respondent No.2.
• Rule issued on 25.04.2022, interim relief confirmed from 13.04.2022, matter placed for final disposal.

2. Petition Under Article 226

• Seeks writ of certiorari to quash memorandum dated 14.07.2021 by CCP.
• CCP sought to recover Rs.48,000/- paid as CEA based on audit report by Respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner's Case

• Employed as Upper Division Clerk with CCP.
• Son with Cerebral Palsy; permanent disability substantiated by medical certificate.
• CEA scheme reimbursement claimed for son's Bachelor of Business Administration fees.
• Reimbursement request submitted on 03.10.2017, Rs.48,000/- disbursed on 01.11.2018.
• Memorandum issued on 14.07.2021 for refund on grounds CEA applicable only up to Class XII.

4. Grounds of Challenge

• Scheme covers classes beyond Class XII for disabled children.
• No misrepresentation; arbitrary conclusion by Audit Officer without hearing Petitioner.

5. Respondent No.1's Affidavit

• Clause 1(l) limits scheme for normal children to Class XII, disabled children benefit up to age 22.
• Legal opinion sought confirming eligibility of Petitioner's child.
• Audit objection post-disbursement, CCP issued memorandum based on directive from Audit Officer.

6. Arguments by Respondent No.2

• No misrepresentation by Petitioner.
• Reimbursement only for children admitted up to Class XII.
• Disabled children reimbursement till age 22, restricted to Class XII.

7. Court's Observations

• No misrepresentation or fraud by Petitioner.
• Legal opinion advised reimbursement without Class XII restriction for disabled children.
• Delay of nearly three years in seeking recovery.
• Payment not based on misrepresentation, hence recovery not justified.

8. Precedent from Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala

• Supreme Court's consistent view: erroneous payments not recoverable without misrepresentation or fraud.

9. Court's Conclusion

• Even if Audit Officer’s interpretation correct, arbitrary to seek recovery after substantial delay.
• Petitioner's background and circumstances considered; Rs.48,000/- significant sum for Petitioner.

10. Final Order

• Quashing and setting aside the impugned memorandum dated 14.07.2021.
• Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.
• No costs.