Punjab-Haryana High Court
Angoori Devi vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 January, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002619
CWP No. 25382 of 2015 and
CWP No. 25430 of 2015 2024:PHHC:002619
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(Sr. No. 204)
(1) CWP No. 25382 of 2015
Date of Decision : 10.01.2024
Angoori Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
(2) CWP No. 25430 of 2015
Raj Wanti
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in both cases.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Karan Kalra, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, two writ petitions, the details of
which have been given in the heading, are being decided as both these
petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002619
CWP No. 25382 of 2015 and
CWP No. 25430 of 2015 2024:PHHC:002619
2. In the present petitions, the grievance of the petitioner(s) is
that vide the impugned orders, the amount of family pension being
received by the petitioner(s) has been revised and the excess amount
received by the petitioner(s) on account of incorrect fixation of the
family pension is sought to be recovered from them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that claim of the
petitioner(s) with regard to the refund of the excess amount is covered by
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,
wherein, it has been mentioned that no recovery of an amount can be
done in case, the same was paid for a continuous period of five years,
hence, the recovery, which is being sought to be recovered from the
petitioner(s) is totally arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the settled
principle of law as settled in Rafiq Masih's case (supra).
4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that in the
present case, the order has been passed by the bank concerned and not by
the State but a bare perusal of the impugned orders would show that
before getting the family pension fixed, the petitioner(s) had given an
undertaking that in case, there is any wrong calculation done, the
petitioner(s) will refund the amount and the bank will be within its
jurisdiction to recover the excess amount, hence, the petitioner(s) cannot
raise any grievance with regard to the recovery being done by the bank
concerned.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002619
CWP No. 25382 of 2015 and
CWP No. 25430 of 2015 2024:PHHC:002619
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. The only question, which arises in the present petitions is
whether the excess amount paid to the petitioner(s) in the form of family
pension can be recovered by the bank or not.
7. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), any amount
which has been paid to an employee for a period of five years and there is
no misrepresentation, the said amount cannot be recovered but the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih's case
(supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006 titled as High Court of Punjab &
Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, decided on 29.07.2016,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where an
undertaking has been given by an employee at the time of receiving any
benefit that in case any excess amount is received and the same is to be
recovered, the undertaking can be given effect to so as to recover the
excess amount paid. The relevant paragraph-11 of the judgment in
Jagdev Singh's case (supra) is as under :-
"The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above
cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the
present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in
the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any
payment found to have been made in excess would be
required to be refunded. The officer furnished an
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002619
CWP No. 25382 of 2015 and
CWP No. 25430 of 2015 2024:PHHC:002619
undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is
bound by the undertaking."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut
the said settled principle of law.
9. That being so, keeping in view the fact that in the impugned
orders, the bank has mentioned that recovery is being done keeping in
view the undertakings given by the petitioner(s), the judgment in Jagdev
Singh's case (supra) will be applicable in the case of the petitioner(s)
and not the Rafiq Masih's case (supra) as being claimed by the
petitioner(s).
10. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in
the present petitions.
11. Dismissed.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
January 10th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002619
4 of 4
