Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar Grover vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 March, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036525
CWP-5944-2024 [1] 2024:PHHC:036525
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-5944-2024
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Sunil Kumar Grover ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. TPS Walia, AAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the Notification/Circular dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) issued
by respondent No.4 and office order No.133 dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-
3) issued by respondent No.3 to the extent it orders for recovery as a
consequence of reduction/refixation of pay of the retiree petitioner w.e.f.
01.12.2011.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is not challenging re-fixation of his pay but is making limited
prayer to the effect that no recovery is to be effected from him as the
petitioner had already retired on 31.08.2016. In support of the said
arguments, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036525
CWP-5944-2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:036525
as 2015(14) SCC 334, para 12 of the said judgment has been highlighted
and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein below: -
"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 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.
13. We are informed by the learned counsel representing the
appellant- State of Punjab, that all the cases in this bunch of
appeals, would undisputedly fall within the first four
categories delineated hereinabove. In the appeals referred to
above, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana (quashing the order of
recovery), shall be deemed to have been upheld, for the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036525
CWP-5944-2024 [3] 2024:PHHC:036525
reasons recorded above."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal
of above-said para would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
summarized certain situations wherein the recoveries by the employers
would be impermissible in law, where the payments had been made
mistakenly by the employer, in excess of entitlement to the employee and
one such situation, as provided under Clause (ii) of Para 12, was recovery
from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year,
of the order of recovery. It is stated that the case of the present petitioner is
squarely covered under the said clause (ii) as it is not in dispute that the
petitioner before this Court is a retired employee.
4. Learned State counsel has not able to dispute the law laid down
in the above-said judgment and has no objection to the said limited prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
present writ petition is allowed to the extent that no recovery in pursuance
of the impugned action of the respondent authorities would be effected from
the present petitioner.
6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
14.03.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036525
3 of 3
