Punjab-Haryana High Court
Managing Director,Pb St.Coop vs Ramesh Kumar on 1 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043099
RSA-495-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:043099 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(210) RSA-495-1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 01st, 2024
Managing Director, Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing
Federation Limited
.. Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate and
Mr. A.P.S. Virk, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Mohinder S. Nain, Advocate, for the respondent.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decrees
of the Courts below by which, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff
claiming the benefit of fixation of pay by taking into consideration the
adhoc service rendered by him, has been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments
and decrees of the Courts below are contrary to the settled principle of law
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.13423 of
1996 titled as State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S.
Association, decided on 19.09.2000, according to which, the adhoc service
rendered by an employee cannot be taken into account for the grant of
selection grade or even for fixation of pay. Hence, the judgments and
decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside being perverse to the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043099
settled principle of law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present
appeal was filed in the year 1999 and as there was no interim order, the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below have already been executed and
further, the respondent has already retired from service and in case, the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside, the benefit already
extended to the respondent-plaintiff will be withdrawn so as to modify his
retiral benefits as well as pension which he is receiving, which will be too
harsh for a retired employee at this stage.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. Though, there is a merit in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant that adhoc service rendered by the respondent-
plaintiff could not have been taken into account for fixing his pay keeping
in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana
Veterinary's case (supra) but as there was no interim order and judgments
under challenge in the present appeal have already been complied with and
executed and the respondent-plaintiff has also retired from service and is
leading a reitred life, it will be harsh to withdraw the said benefit so as to
refix his salary and recover the amount paid to him.
6. The question of law settled by the courts below is set aside and
keeping in view the settled principle of law, it is held that adhoc service
rendered by an employee cannot be taken into account for fixing his salary
or grant of selection grade.
7. The next question which arise is that as there was no interim
order, the judgments under appeal have already been executed and the
benefit admissible under those judgments has already been extended to the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043099
respondent-plaintiff. Not only this, the respondent-plaintiff has already
retired and as a pensioner drawing the pension. Keeping in view the said
factum, whether the benefit extended under the judgment is liable to be
withdrawn or not is to be adjudicated.
8. The question of excess payment made beyond the entitlement
has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.11527 of 2014 titled as State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and others, decided on 18.12.2014. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held that where the payments have been made by mistake
in excess of the entitlement, in order to avoid hardship to the employees,
recovery is not permissible. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, certain
eventualities where recovery from the employee will amount to hardship
have been detailed. Relevant paragraph 12 of the said judgment is as
under:-
"12. 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 herein above, 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).
(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 wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been
paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043099
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. A bare perusal of the paragraph 12 of the judgment would show
that the recovery from the retired employee is covered under the category of
hardship and has been made impermissible.
10. In the present appeal, though under the judgments of the Courts
below, the respondent-plaintiff has been paid the amount and upon setting
aside the said judgments, the claim will be raised by the appellant for the
recovery of the amount paid in excess to the respondent-plaintiff than his
entitlement, hence, it is directed that keeping in view the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), as the
respondent-plaintiff has already retired and is drawing pension as a
pensioner, despite the fact the judgments of the Courts below have been set
aside, the benefit already extended be not recovered as an exceptional case.
11. The present appeal is disposed of in above terms.
12. Any civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands
disposed of.
April 01st, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
