Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamlesh Rani vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd And ... on 20 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041579
CWP-17422-2022 -1-
2024:PHHC:041579
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-17422-2022
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
KAMLESH RANI
...Petitioner
VERSUS
HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD AND ANR.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for
Mr. H. S. Gill, 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 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-6), whereby 1/3rd pension of
the petitioner has been deducted for recovery of excess amount of
pension/arrears and salary and for further directing the respondents to refund
the deducted recovery along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
working as an Assistant in the respondent-Nigam and she retired on 31.08.2014
and prior to her retirement, she was granted an increment by the respondents
themselves without any request made by her and it was not a result of any fraud
or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041579
2024:PHHC:041579
respondent-Nigam has granted the increment to the petitioner on their own
based upon their instructions but thereafter, the petitioner retired and after the
retirement, repeated notices were issued to the petitioner that she was granted
wrong increment at the time when she was in service and thereafter, the pension
was also wrongly fixed and therefore, the respondent-Nigam was within its
powers to have recovered the excess amount which she has withdrawn from her
salary and also due to wrong fixation of the pension, the excess amount which
has been given to the petitioner in her pension and in this way, a total amount of
Rs.1,07,137/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. He further
submitted that the increment was fixed by the respondents themselves and the
petitioner falls in Category-'C' and therefore, is covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and others, 2015(4) SCC 344 and also the instructions issued
by the Government of Haryana from time to time. He also submitted that no
such recovery can be effected from the petitioner in this regard.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submitted that so far as the recovery pertaining to the period prior
to the retirement of the petitioner is concerned, the same undoubtedly cannot be
recovered now after her retirement because of the fact that she falls in
Category-'C' and to that extent, the prayer of the petitioner would be covered by
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (Supra). He
further submitted that thereafter, once the petitioner was paid excess amount for
her pension as well, she was not entitled to claim the aforesaid amount and
since the petitioner was getting extra pension, she was bound to pay back the
amount which has been given to her. He referred to the impugned order
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041579
2024:PHHC:041579
(Annexure P-6), wherein it has been so stated that the petitioner had furnished
an undertaking at the time of her retirement and also at the time of revision of
pension as on 01.01.2016 and therefore, after her retirement, the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (Supra) will not apply with
regard to recovery of excess pension but another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others versus Jagdev Singh,
2016(14) SCC 267 will apply because of her undertaking. He also referred to
the undertaking which has been attached as Annexure R-6 with the reply filed
by the respondents in this regard.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. So far as the earlier amount of salary which the petitioner has got
on the basis of increment while she was in service is concerned, the same is
undoubtedly covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq
Masih's case (Supra) and on this point, the learned counsel for the respondents
has also not disputed the same because the petitioner falls in Category 'C' and
any amount which was paid because of fixation of her increment during her
service would not have been recovered from the petitioner after retirement. So
far as the later part of the recovery which is sought to be made from the pension
of the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has
referred to the undertaking (Annexure R-6). A perusal of the aforesaid
undertaking (Annexure R-6) would show that the undertaking is dated
07.07.2020. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-6) would show that it
has been so stated that the petitioner had given an undertaking at the time of her
retirement and also that the time of revision of pension as on 01.01.2016 but no
such undertaking has been attached with the present reply and the only
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041579
2024:PHHC:041579
undertaking which is now referred is Annexure R-6 which is of the year 2020
and in the absence of any such undertaking, no inference can be drawn that the
petitioner had given any undertaking at the time of retirement or at the time of
revision of pension as on 01.01.2016. Apart from the above, when notice of
motion was issued by this Court, the further recovery from the petitioner was
also stayed and as per the learned counsel for the parties, no recovery has been
made from the petitioner, which is to the tune of Rs.1,07,137/-.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has specifically stated that the petitioner is not disputing the powers
of the respondent-Nigam to have re-fixed the pension but she is only disputing
that the recovery cannot be made once it has been paid to her. Since there is no
such undertaking on the record as so stated by the learned counsel for the
respondent-Nigam, the judgment of Rafiq Masih's case (Supra) will be
applicable to the petitioner and not that of Jagdev Singh's case (Supra). Even
otherwise also, the total amount is only Rs.1,07,137/-, which cannot be
recovered from the petitioner.
8. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) is hereby set aside. The respondent-
Nigam cannot recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,07,137/- from the
petitioner. However, if at all, any recovery has been made from the aforesaid
amount at any stage, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
20.03.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
