Punjab-Haryana High Court
Moti Lal And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046031
235 2024:PHHC:046031
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-16710-2020
Date of decision: 04.04.2024
MOTI LAL AND ORS ...... Petitioners
versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
***
Present: Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the certain amount
have been recovered from the petitioners, which should be refunded. Learned
State counsel on the other hand, submits that no details of the amount which
has been recovered from the petitioners has been furnished to them and as per
his instructions, no recovery of any amount has been done from the petitioners
so far.
2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
no recovery can be done from a Class-III and Class-IV employee keeping in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme of India in Civil Appeal No.
11527 of 2014 titled as State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih decided
on 18.12.2014 hence, even otherwise, the notice given by the respondent is
bad qua the recovery of any amount from the salary of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to rebut that
keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State
of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, no recovery can be done from a
Class-III and Class-IV employee and it is also a conceded position that all the
petitioners are working as Mechanic on a Class-III post.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046031
235 2024:PHHC:046031
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. Once, the amount which was paid to the petitioner in excess has
not been obtained through any fraud or mis- representation and the same was
paid by the respondent on their own, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 titled as State of
Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih decided on 18.12.2014 stating that no
recovery can be made in case the employee concerned is working on a Class-
III and Class-IV post, no recovery can be done from the petitioners. The
relevant paragraph 12 of the judgment is as under:-
"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:
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 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."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046031
235 2024:PHHC:046031
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to rebut as
to under what circumstances, the recovery can be done from the petitioners
who are working as an employee on the Class-III post.
7. Keeping in view of the above, it is directed that no recovery be
done from the petitioners in respect of the notice given to them.
8. Present petition is allowed in above stated terms.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
04.04.2024
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
