Raj Bala Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 9613 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raj Bala Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 May, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062135




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
216

                                           CWP-27131-2022 (O&M)
                                           Decided on :03.05.2024
RAJ BALA CHAUDHARY                                          . .petitioner
                                         Versus

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
                                                                 . . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

PRESENT: Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 3 & 4.



       ****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated

02.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) by which, the recovery of Rs. 6,62,926/- has

been imposed upon the petitioner from her family pension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no

misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner so as to claim the benefit of

enhanced pension but, the respondents themselves have paid the enhanced

pension to the petitioner and hence, keeping in view the settled principle of

law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v.

Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) 2015 (4) SCC 334, no recovery can be done

from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits

that in the present case, the petitioner has given an undertaking that in

case, any extra amount is paid to the petitioner, the same will be recovered

back from her, hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the

present case as well as the undertaking given by the petitioner, the judgment

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062135

CWP-27131-2022 (O&M) -2- passed by this Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v.

Jagdev Singh 2016 (14) SCC 267 will be applicable which has been passed

after considering the judgment passed in Rafiq Masih's case (supra).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

5. As per the judgment passed in Jagdev Singh' s case (Supra),

the department is well within its jurisdiction to recover the extra amount

paid to the employees, in case the employee has already undertaken to the

effect that in case he/she received extra amount, then the said amount can be

recovered back.

6. In the fact and circumstances of the present case, where the

submission of an undertaking is conceded to the effect that in case, extra

amount is paid to the petitioner by mistake by the respondent-department

then the same can be recovered, the said judgment of Jagdev Singh's case

(supra) will be applicable in the present case and not the judgment passed in

Rafiq Masih's case (Supra).

7. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances recorded

herein above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the

present petition, hence, the present petition stands dismissed.

8. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed

of.

                                                (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                        JUDGE
03.05.2024
Riya

Whether speaking/reasoned:        Yes/No
Whether Reportable:                Yes/No




                                    2 of 2