Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Chander Khanna vs Uhbvnl And Ors on 25 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056741
CWP-2567-2017(O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:056741
218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2567-2017(O&M)
Date of decision: 25.04.2024
Jagdish Chander Khanna
...Petitioner
VERSUS
UHBVNL and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing order dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure P-3).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
was not granted the stepping up of pay for grant of first and second ACP and he
filed a writ petition before this Court in CWP No.24019 of 2011 which was
allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-1 on
16.12.2014 by which it was directed that the petitioner was entitled for benefit
in this regard. Thereafter, since the amount was not paid to the petitioner, he
filed a contempt petition before this Court and in the contempt petition the
counsel for the respondent had stated that some amount has been paid to the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056741
CWP-2567-2017(O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:056741
petitioner and rather an excess payment has already been made to the petitioner
and therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of by giving a liberty to the
respondent to recover the excess amount after giving the petitioner an
opportunity to respond through recovery notice and liberty was also granted
to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before this Court in the
contempt petition in case the assertion made by the counsel for the respondent
is found to be incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter a notice was
issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-3 to which he replied vide Annexure
P-4. He submitted that once an amount has been paid to the petitioner even if it
is an excess amount due to some inadvertent mistake, then the respondents are
not entitled to recover the said amount in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih and others,
2015(4) SCC 334.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submitted that when the petition filed by the petitioner earlier
was allowed by this Court vide Annexure P-1 and the same has already been
complied with and the amount has already been paid to the petitioner but
inadvertently some excess amount was paid to the petitioner. He submitted that
the total amount alongwith interest which was payable to the petitioner was
Rs. 2, 51,069/- but inadvertentely an amount of Rs. 3,97,118/- was paid to him
and therefore, for the excess amount of Rs. 1,46,049/- recovery was required to
be effected and rather when a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an
order in the contempt petition, rather liberty was given to the respondents to
recover the excess amount after giving an opportunity of hearing and rather
liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in case
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056741
CWP-2567-2017(O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:056741
the assertion made by the respondent is found to be incorrect. He submitted that
no application has been filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid contempt
petition thereafter and now once a liberty has been granted by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court for recovery of the excess amount after giving an
opportunity of hearing and regarding which a notice was issued by the
respondents, then the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih and others(supra) will not apply.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The only dispute in the present case is as to whether the
respondents could have recovered an excess amount of Rs. 1,46,049/- from the
petitioner or not. The petitioner earlier had filed a petition for grant of first and
second ACP which was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents
to pay the petitioner the amount alongwith interest. The total amount which
was required to be paid to the petitioner was Rs. 2, 51,069/- but inadvertently
an amount of Rs. 3,97,118/- was paid to the petitioner and therefore, there was
an excess payment of Rs. 1,46,049/-. When the petitioner filed a contempt
petition before this Court, liberty was granted to recover the excess amount.
The aforesaid order Annexure P-2 is reproduced as under:-
"Counsel for the respondent states that the amount due to the
petitioner, in compliance with the order passed by this Court and
having accepted the claim of the petitioner, has been released. He
further states that inadvertently excess payment has been made as it
has been granted to the petitioner from the date it became due rather
the arrears have been restricted to 38 months prior to the date of the
filing of the writ petition.
If that be so, the respondent is at liberty to recover the excess amount
after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond through recovery
notice. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate
application before this Court in the present contempt petition in case
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056741
CWP-2567-2017(O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:056741
the assertion, as made by the counsel for the respondent, is found to
be incorrect. With these observations, the present contempt petition is
disposed of as infructuous with liberty aforesaid.
Rule issued to the respondent stands discharged subject to above.
6. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that this Court had
rather granted liberty to the respondents to recover the excess amount after
giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-3 a
notice was issued to the petitioner to which he replied. It is not the case of the
counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid amount was not an excess amount
but it is only the case of the counsel for the petitioner that the same could not
have been recovered even if it was inadvertently deposited because of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus
Rafiq Masih and others(supra). This Court is of the considered view that
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner is
not covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab
and others Versus Rafiq Masih and others(supra). Rather on the other hand, a
liberty was granted to the respondent-Nigam by this Court itself vide Annexure
P-2 to recover the excess amount after giving opportunity of hearing.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is not only devoid of
merit but it is also misconceived. Consequently, the present petition is
dismissed.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
25.04.2024 JUDGE
rakesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
