Dr. Amandeep Singh And Others vs Central University Of Punjab (In ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12080 P&H

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101850




CWP-11995-2017                   -1-            2023:PHHC:101850

112   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CWP-11995-2017
                                          Date of Decision:07.08.2023

DR. AMANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS                               ......... Petitioners

                                    Versus

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB (IN SHORT CUPB) &
OTHERS                                ..... Respondents

                                        AND
                                              CWP-11749-2017

SURINDER SINGH KHURANA AND ANOTHER                             ....Petitioners

                                 Versus

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB BATHINDA AND
ANOTHER                              ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate
            for the petitioners in CWP-11995-2017.

            Mr. Ajay Bansal, Advocate for
            Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate
            for the petitioners in CWP-11749-2017.

            Mr Shivoy Dhir, Advocate
            for the respondents No.1 and 2.

       Mr. Deepanjay Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
            ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order CWP-11995-2017 and CWP-11749-

2017 are disposed of as issue involved in both the petition is common.

For the sake of brevity and convenience facts are borrowed from CWP-

11995-2017.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of orders

dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P-9) and 17.05.2017 (Annexure P-16)

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101850

CWP-11995-2017 -2- 2023:PHHC:101850

whereby respondent authorities have reduced house rent allowance 20%

to 10% of salary w.e.f. 2011 and initiated recovery proceedings for the

HRA paid @ 20% from 2011 to October, 2016.

3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the

adjudication of present petition are that respondent University was

established in 2009 as an autonomous University. All the executive

powers of Management and Administration vest with Executive council.

The petitioners joined teaching staff of the respondent University. They

were paid HRA @ 20% of salary from 2011. They were paid HRA @

20% considering Bathinda- B-1 Class City. The record of the respondent

University came to be audited and during the course of audit, it was

found that Central Government has not issued any notification to grant

HRA @ 20% whereas as per policy petitioners are entitled to HRA @

10%. Accordingly, it was decided to grant HRA @ 10% instead of 20%.

The respondent further decided to make recovery with respect to

differential amount of HRA i.e. difference between 20% and 10%. The

recovery was found for the period 2011 to October, 2016.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners inter alia contend that

Punjab Government has declared Bathinda- B-1 Class City and

respondent University relying upon decision of State of Punjab had

granted HRA @ 20%. The petitioners left their previous job and joined

University under impression that they are going to get HRA @ 20%.

They have hired accommodation considering HRA @ 20%. The act of

respondent is unilateral act and respondent without granting opportunity

to petitioners has decided to reduce HRA from 20% to 10% and further

initiated recovery proceedings. The case of the petitioners is squarely

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101850

CWP-11995-2017 -3- 2023:PHHC:101850

covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs.

Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 (4) SCC 334.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon Office

Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 issued by Government of India. The said

Office Memorandum is based upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent with respect to

recovery submits that petitioners have been given time to make payment

in installments and with respect to future payment submits that it is a

policy matter and respondent being Central University is not bound by

any notification of the State Government. As per policy of the Central

Government, the petitioners are eligible to HRA @ 10%.

7. On being confronted with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) and Office Memorandum,

learned counsel for the respondents expressed his inability to controvert.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) (supra) with respect to excess payment of salary/emoluments

has observed that excess payment cannot be recovered in following

situations.

"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or 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

                                 3 of 4

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101850




CWP-11995-2017                    -4-          2023:PHHC:101850

wrongfully be 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."

9. The Central Government by Office Memorandum dated

02.03.2016 has advised all Ministries/Departments to deal with issue of

wrongful/excess payment make to Government servants in accordance

with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) (supra).

10. In view of statement of both sides, the case of the petitioners

with respect to recovery of excess payment of HRA is squarely covered

by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court read with Office Memorandum

issued by Central Government, thus, respondents are directed not to make

any recovery of alleged excess payment of HRA. With respect to future

payment of HRA @ 20% or 10%, the petitioners are at liberty to move

representation to the respondent University which would consider their

representation in accordance with law.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
07.08.2023
Ali
                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                       Whether Reportable       Yes/No




                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101850

                                4 of 4