Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kaliperumal And Another vs State Of Ut Chd And Others on 9 March, 2022
CWP No. 24305 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(227) CWP No. 24305 of 2019
Date of Decision : 09.03.2022
Kali Perumal and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh and others
...Respondents
(Through Video Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioners is not to
recover the excess pension paid to them, which is sought to be recovered
vide impugned order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and
others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015(1) S.C.T., 195, no
recovery can be effected from an employee, who has already retired and,
therefore, the impugned recovery, which is being done from the petitioners
is bad in law.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
1 of 3
CWP No. 24305 of 2019
submits that the present is a peculiar case where, petitioners contiued to
work with the respondent-department even after attaining the age of
superannuation. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner
No. 1 attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.1998 and petitioner No. 2
was to retire on 30.06.2000 but they continued to work till 06.07.2009.
After the factum that the petitioners had already attained the age of
superannuation, they were retired on 06.07.2009 but w.e.f. the date they
attained the age of superannuation and their pensionary benefits were fixed
starting from the date, on which they attained the age of superannuation and
their pensions were calculated from the said date and also paid. Learned
counsel submits that by the said act, the petitioners not only got a salary
from the date they attained the age of superannuation till 06.07.2009 but
also got the pension for the same period, which is not admissible and,
therefore, as the petitioners had discharged their duties upto 06.07.2009,
they were allowed to retain their salary for the said period but the pension,
which was inadvertently paid to the petitioners upto 06.07.2009, is being
sought to be recovered.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even at the
time of the grant of pensionary benefits, the petitioners had already
undertaken that in case, there is any ambiguity or any excess payment is
paid to them, the same will be refunded back by them and, therefore, no
fault can be found in the act of the answering respondents so as to recover
the excess pension paid to petitioner No. 1 starting from 31.08.1998 to
06.07.2009 and in case of petitioner No. 2 from 30.06.2000 till 06.07.2009
and the same will be recovered in installments, as already being done from
2 of 3
CWP No. 24305 of 2019
the year 2018 onwards.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case,
only the pension paid to the petitioners from 31.08.1998 till 06.07.2009 in
case of petitioner No. 1 and in case of petitioner No. 2 from 30.06.2000 till
06.07.2009 is being sought to be recovered, the petitioners raises no
grievance for the said action but submits that the same be recovered in
installments as already being done by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1
has, unfortunately, died and hence, petitioner No. 2 is also to be granted the
family pension and deduction is to be made from the said family pension but
the same may be done in installments as being already done.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once, the
recovery is being done in installments, the same process will be followed
even while recovering excess amount paid to petitioner No. 1 even after his
death by deducting the same from the family pension to be granted in favour
of petitioner No. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in
view the above, no grievance of the petitioners survives and the present
petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further.
Ordered accordingly.
March 09, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
3 of 3
