Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 April, 2024
CWP-14754-2017 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:045798 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.208 CWP-14754-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2024 Neeraj and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Sunil K.Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana. 3K 2 3k TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 07.07.2017, Annexures P-11 and P-12, issued to petitioners no.1 and 2, whereby recovery of ¥%3,35,334 and %7,01,360 respectively, is sought to be affected from them.
2. Briefly, as per facts on record the respondent-College issued advertisement no.1 of 2013, Annexure P-1, inviting applications for the post of Junior Residents on contractual basis for a period of six months, extendable as per Haryana Government Rules, on payment of monthly salary of €21,000 plus Dearness Allowance (DA) as admissible from time to time. After due selection, petitioner no.1 was offered the post of Junior Resident in PMR Department for six months on monthly emoluments of ¥21,000 plus D.A. and special allowance of ¥8,000 per month, vide letter dated 13.02.2013, Annexure P-2. Earlier, in similar manner Petitioner no.2 had been offered appointment as Junior Resident in PMR Department for six months on payment of monthly emoluments of ¥21,000 plus DA, vide letter MANINDER dated 18.01.2012, Annexure P-3. Pursuant thereto, both of them joined 2024.04.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-14754-2017 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:045798 service and continued as such with short breaks. After being in service for close to four years, they were issued notices, dated 26.05.2017, Annexures P-7 and P-8, requiring to show cause as to why excess salary paid to them as Junior Resident be not recovered, since they did not fulfill the requisite minimum qualification for the post. Both of them submitted reply to the notices. Pursuant thereto, the impugned orders, dated 07.07.2017, were passed directing them to deposit the excess amount of salary received from the date of their appointment to 03.07.2014, i.e., when their remuneration was revised.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were duly selected pursuant to advertisement no.1 of 2013, wherein fourteen posts of Junior Residents were advertised with monthly remuneration of 21,000 plus DA. The letters of appointment also mentioned this remuneration to be paid to them, and it was, accordingly, drawn by them during service. There is no allegation of concealment of any fact by them at any stage. The salary was determined by the respondents themselves and paid to the petitioners. Therefore, there is no ground to effect recovery from them after working on the post for about four years.
4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the facts aforementioned. He, however, contends, since the petitioners did not fulfill the requisite qualification for the post, they were not entitled to the salary drawn and become liable to pay the excess amount received.
5. Heard.
6. Undisputed facts on record are, the petitioners were duly selected and offered appointment to the post of Junior Resident on monthly salary of €21,000 plus DA, which was, accordingly, drawn by them while in service. The selection and appointments were made based on the credentials MANINDER 7 erat ta the accuracy PEeSented by the petitioners, and duly accepted by the respondents. The offer authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-14754-2017 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:045798 of appointment was based on the terms mentioned in the advertisement. On acceptance of the offer, the petitioners joined service and were paid salary in terms thereof. No wrong can be attributed to them on that account, nor has it been done. Still, the impugned orders for affecting recovery of the alleged excess amount of salary have been passed, which have no basis. In case the respondents themselves committed any mistake in selecting and appointing the petitioners and paying them monthly salary of €21,000 plus DA despite the alleged lack of requisite qualification, fault, if any, on that account lies only with the respondents; the petitioners cannot be blamed for it in any manner, much less after rendering service for about four years. Accordingly, the salary paid to them during service for the period they actually worked, cannot be recovered, as that would be unfair and unreasonable. Besides, the principle of estoppel also precludes the respondents from affecting any such recovery, since the petitioners acted upon the representation made to them through the advertisement as well as the offer of appointment, and changed their positions by accepting the same and joining the post on the terms stipulated. Accordingly, the respondents are estopped from changing their position to affect recovery of the alleged excess salary.
7. In view of the discussion, the petition stands allowed. The impugned orders, dated 07.07.2017, are hereby set aside.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 04.04.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable : Yes MANINDER 2024.04.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.