Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinderjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119620
CWP No. 8511 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119620
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(204) CWP No. 8511 of 2020
Date of Decision : 12.09.2023
Surinderjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and
Ms. Tanya Sehgal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 6.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 09.06.2020 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Bank re-fixing the
pension of the petitioner on the ground that same was wrongly fixed
while giving the benefit under the revised pay rules which came into
effect w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as, dearness allowance and interim relief were
made part of the basic pay so as to calculate the pension, which mistake
has been rectified by the respondents while passing the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present
case, even if it is assumed that the said calculation of the pension was
done by mistake still, as the petitioner has already been paid the said
amount by the respondents, no recovery of the same can be done keeping
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119620
CWP No. 8511 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119620
in view 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even
otherwise, the component of dearness allowance and the interim relief
should have been made part of the basic pay so as to calculate the
pension.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that not
only in the case of the petitioner but in other cases also the same mistake
was committed by the bank and the pension was fixed at a higher rate,
which mistake was later on rectified and the similar action of the Bank
taken against similarly situated pensioners was also challenged before
this Court. Learned counsel further submits that this Court while passing
order in CWP No. 14116 of 2015 titled as Chaman Lal Vs. State of
Punjab and others, decided on 27.04.2022 as well as CWP No. 7650 of
2016 titled as Prithi Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others, has upheld
the rectification of the pension and even the action to recover the amount
has already been upheld, hence, the claim of the petitioner is covered
against him as per the judgment in Chaman Lal's case (supra).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
In the present petition, the petitioner's pension has been re-
fixed upon rectification of a mistake, which had occurred while fixing the
pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006. As per the respondents, the dearness
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119620
CWP No. 8511 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119620
allowance and the interim relief could not have been made part of the
basic pay so as to calculate the pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner though has submitted that
the dearness allowance and interim relief has to be the part of the basic
pay while calculating the pension but nothing has been brought on record
to support the said argument. In the absence of any record/instructions of
the Government of Punjab that for fixing the pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006,
the basic pay has also to include the dearness allowance and the interim
relief, the claim of the petitioner that his pension was rightly fixed w.e.f.
01.01.2006 cannot be accepted.
Further, in the similar cases, this Court has already passed an
order in Chaman Lal's case (supra), wherein, not only the re-fixation has
been held to be valid but even the recovery has been held to be valid
keeping in view the settled principle of law by relying upon the judgment
of the Division Bench in LPA No. 874 of 2014 titled as Balbir Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and others, decided on 04.09.2014. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-
"8. A bare perusal of the paragraph 12 would show
that no recovery can be done from the retired employees and
no recovery could have been done with regard to the
benefits, which the employee continued to get for a period of
5 years prior to the date of withdrawal.
9. In the present case, the petitioners retired in the
year 1999 much before the re-fixation of their pension in the
year 2009, which was to be done w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and
therefore, the benefit was being granted to the petitioner
after their retirement. Further, present is not the case where
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119620
CWP No. 8511 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119620
a benefit given is being withdrawn rather, a mistake
occurred in fixation is being rectified, therefore, keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih's case
(supra), will not be applicable.
10. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in LPA
No.874 of 2014 titled as Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana
and others, decided on 04.09.2014 held that where there is a
clerical mistake in re-fixation of pension, the same can be
rectified and the excess amount paid can be recovered. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
"The appellant is not challenging the fixation of his
pension. He also does not dispute that after re-fixation
of his pension by the authorities, less payment was to
be made, but due to inadvertent clerical error on the
part of the bank authorities, excess amount was
credited in his pension account, which he was not
entitled to. In these circumstances, notice was issued
to the appellant to refund the excess payment received
by him. In our opinion, the said excess payment, which
was made to the appellant due to clerical error on the
part of the bank, is duly recoverable. The aforesaid
judgments, relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellant, are not applicable in the wake of the
situation as sketched out above. The principle laid
down in these judgments is that where the Government
consciously makes excess payment to an employee
considering that it was validly being given to him, but
later on it is found that such employee was not
actually entitled to receive the said amount, in that
situation, if the excess payment was made under bona-
fide act of the State, and without any
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119620
CWP No. 8511 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119620
misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, recovery
of such excess payment cannot be effected from the
employee after his retirement. This principle
enunciated in the aforesaid judgments does not apply
to the facts of the present case. Here, due to clerical
error on the part of the bank, excess amount was
credited in the pension account of the appellant, for
which he was not entitled to either at that time or
subsequently. Therefore, such amount has to be
refunded by the appellant to the authorities, which has
been received by him in excess. The principle of unjust
enrichment will be applicable in the present case and
when the appellant is approaching this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he cannot be
granted an inequitable benefit, by relying upon the
aforesaid judgments. The necessary relief has already
been granted to the appellant by the learned Single
Judge, which in our opinion is more than the relief,
which he deserves. We do not find any illegality in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge."
11. Keeping in view the above, as the present case
relates to the re- fixation of pension and while calculating
the amount of pension so as to refix the same, the pension
was wrongly fixed due to a clerical mistake. Keeping in view
the settled principle of law stated hereinbefore, the
respondents are well within their jurisdiction to recover the
excess amount paid being public money which amount has
been paid to the petitioners over and above their
entitlement."
Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner is
covered against him keeping in view the judgment in Chaman Lal's case
(supra), hence, no relief can be granted to him in the present petition and
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119620
CWP No. 8511 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119620
the order passed by the respondent-Bank re-fixing the pension of the
petitioner as well as recovery of the excess amount paid is held to be
valid.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
September 12, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119620
6 of 6
