Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jogi Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115523-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.102 LPA-1085-2022
Date of decision : 04.09.2024
Jogi Ram ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present : Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
*****
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
1. On 01.02.1977 the appellant joined as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation
Department, Haryana. Later, he earned promotion as Sub Divisional Officer and from
such post, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.01.2012.
On 18.10.2012 the appellant's pension was re-fixed as the office of the Accountant
General, Haryana found that in the year 1992 the appellant had wrongly been granted
an increment. A sum of Rs.1,72,241/- was also ordered to be recovered from the
appellant's payable gratuity. The appellant challenged such action of the State
through filing of a petition before this Court through which he claimed not only the
deducted amount of Rs.1,72,241/- but also interest thereupon. A learned Single Judge
of this Court relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab
and others vs. Rafic Mashih (White Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that the
recovered amount could not be recovered from a retired employee like the appellant
and resultantly, ordered the State to refund Rs.1,72,241/- to him. However, the
claimed interest was not granted. Non grant of interest by the learned Single Judge
has been challenged by the appellant through the instant intra court appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115523-DB
LPA-1085-2022 [2]
3. While the appellant served the Irrigation Department of the State of
Haryana, an additional increment was granted to him in the year 1992. At the time of
the appellant's retirement in the year 2012 while the State calculated his payable
retiral benefits, the Audit Department of the State found that the appellant was not
entitled to the increment granted to him in the year 1992. Accordingly, the excess
amount paid to the appellant was recovered from his payable gratuity.
4. Since the appellant had already retired and that admittedly he had also
not misrepresented or played any fraud with the State at the time of grant of the
additional increment in the year 1992, through the impugned judgment the learned
Single Judge, while following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq
Mashih's case (supra) ordered that the excess amount recovered from the appellant be
refunded to him. However, since neither before the learned Single Judge nor before
us the appellant justified the grant of the afore increment to him or has shown that he
was entitled to the grant thereof, we are of the opinion that on the refund of the excess
amount recovered by the State from the appellant no interest is required to be paid as
from the year 1992 till the year 2012 it was the appellant who received and used
excess amount to which he was otherwise not entitled to.
5. Dismissed.
[DEEPAK SIBAL]
JUDGE
04.09.2024 [DEEPAK MANCHANDA]
shamsher JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
