Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar Sanon vs Pspcl & Ors on 19 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055205
CWP-26509 of 2016 -1- 2023:PHHC:055205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223 CWP-26509 of 2016
Date of Decision:19.04.2023
Pardeep Kumar Sanon
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
****
Present: Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. H. S. Ghumman, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,40,580/- which has been
unlawfully deducted from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was working in the respondent-Corporation as Steno-Typist which falls in the
Category-C (Class-III) and he retired on 30.09.2015 after attaining the age of
superannuation. He submitted that in the year 2013 which was about two years
before the retirement of the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation got a
clarification from the accounts department on the ground that when the
petitioner was earlier granted some time bound promotion increments for a
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055205
CWP-26509 of 2016 -2- 2023:PHHC:055205
period from 1994 to 2007 whether the same could have been granted to him or
not and thereafter when the petitioner retired then from his pensionary benefits
an amount of Rs.1,40,580/- was deducted on the ground that for a period from
1994 to 2007 he was wrongly granted the time bound promotion increments
and since the increment was not in accordance with law and therefore the same
was directed to recover from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a settled law
that after the retirement of the petitioner no such recovery can be made
especially when there is no allegation of any fraud or mis-representation etc. by
the petitioner and it is a case where first benefit was granted number of years
ago prior to his retirement by the respondent-Corporation themselves and it
was not because of any mis-representation etc. by the petitioner. He further
submitted that even otherwise also the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and
others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 2015 (4) SCC 334 since the
petitioner was working and retired as Category-C (Class-III) employee and
recovery was effected later on. He submitted that the respondent-Corporation
be directed to refund the aforesaid amount alongwith the interest to the
petitioner.
On the other hand, Mr. H. S. Ghumman, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents submitted that in fact the process for determining
and ascertaining as to whether the petitioner was granted the time bound
promotion increments for the period from 1994 to 2007, in accordance with
law or not, a clarification was sought from the accounts department but the
matter could not be finalized pertaining to the ascertainment and at the time of
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055205
CWP-26509 of 2016 -3- 2023:PHHC:055205
his retirement it was ascertained that he was wrongly granted the aforesaid
benefit between the aforesaid period and that was the reason as to why from his
pensionary benefits there was a recovery of Rs.1,40,580/-. He submitted that
since the process had started prior to his retirement, the petitioner is not
entitled for the refund of the amount.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The facts of the present case are clear and simple. The petitioner
was working as Steno-Typist and retired as such and therefore as per learned
counsel for the parties, he was under the Category-C (Class-III) and retired on
30.09.2015. After his retirement, from his pensionary benefits an amount was
recovered on the ground that for the period pertaining to 1994 to 2007 some
benefits were granted to him pertaining to the time bound promotion increment
which now according to the Corporation was erroneously given. There was no
element of fraud or mis-representation etc. by the petitioner and the aforesaid
benefit was granted by the Corporation itself. Therefore, it is clear that the case
of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra). The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced as under:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship,
which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where
payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of
their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions
referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class
IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055205
CWP-26509 of 2016 -4- 2023:PHHC:055205
ii) Recovery from retired employees, or the employees who are
due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has
been made for a period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been
paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully
been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would
be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as
would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's
right to recover."
The case of the petitioner falls in clause (i) and (ii). The
justification putforth by learned counsel for the respondents is not proper and it
is not in accordance with law whereas on the other hand, the case of the
petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgmnet in Rafiq Masih's case (supra).
In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is allowed.
The petitioner is entitled for the refund of the aforesaid amount of
Rs.1,40,580/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. The respondent-
Corporation is directed to calculate the interest from the date of the recovery
made from the petitioner and pay to the petitioner the aforesaid amount
alongwith interest within a period of three months from today.
In case the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner within the
aforesaid period of three months from today, then the petitioner shall be
entitled for a future rate of interest @ 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055205
CWP-26509 of 2016 -5- 2023:PHHC:055205
The petitioner shall also be entitled for costs which are assessed as
Rs.10,000/- which shall also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three
months from today.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
April 19, 2023
dinesh
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055205
5 of 5
