Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126687
CWP-15058-2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
812
CWP-15058-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.09.2024
Prem Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the show cause
notice dated 09.02.2006 whereby the pay of the petitioner was refixed by
rectifying an alleged mistake and for recovery of the dues paid in excess.
2. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2007
stayed the recovery and in the meantime, the petitioner, who had joined the
service in the year 1981, would have even retired, as such the present petition
is covered by the judgment in Krishan Kumar Singla vs. State of Punjab
and Others, CWP-11341-2003, decided on 20.09.2010, SLP against which
was dismissed on 05.12.2014. The relevant paras of Krishan Kumar Singla
(supra) read thus:
"5. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's
case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this
petition :
"It is in the light of the above pronouncement. no
longer open to the authorities granting the benefits,
no matter erroneously, to contend that even when
the employee concerned was not at fault and was not
in any way responsible for the mistake committed
by the authorities they are entitled to recover the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126687
benefit that has been received by the employee on
the basis of any such erroneous grant. We say so
primarily because if the employee is not responsible
for the erroneous grant of benefit to him/her, it
would induce in him the belief that the same was
indeed due and payable. Acting on that belief the
employee would, as any other person placed in his
position arrange his affairs accordingly which he
may not have done if he had known that the benefit
being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any
subsequent point of time on what may be then said
to be the correct interpretation and application of
rules. Having induced that belief in the employee
and made him change his position and arrange his
affairs in a manner that he would not otherwise have
done, it would be unfair, inequitable and harsh for
the Government to direct recovery of the excess
amount simply because on a true and correct
interpretation of the rules, such a benefit was not
due. It does not require much imagination to say that
additional monetary benefits going to an employee
may not always result in accumulation of his
resources and savings. Such a benefit may often be
utilized on smaller luxuries of life which the
employee and his family may not have been able to
afford had the benefit not been extended to him. The
employees can well argue that if it was known to
them that the additional benefit is only temporary
and would be recovered back from them, they would
not have committed themselves to any additional
expenditure in their daily affairs and would have cut
their coat according to their cloth. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the
employees who are recipient of the benefits
extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or
application of any rule, regulation, circular and
instructions have not in any way contributed to such
erroneous interpretation nor have they committed
any fraud, misrepresentation, deception to obtain the
grant of such benefit, the benefit so extended may be
stopped for the future, but the amount already paid
to the employees cannot be recovered from them."
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of
Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil
Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009)
reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, it is directed
that respondents would have no right to effect recovery
from the petitioner. In the meantime, in the interregnum
period if any recovery has been effected, the amount shall
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126687
be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt
of a certified copy of this order. The action of the
respondents in regard refixation of pay, however, is
maintained."
3. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment Thomas Daniel
vs. State of Kerala1, wherein by relying on Sahib Ram vs. State of
Haryana2 and State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih3, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court held that generally, the recovery of amounts paid in excess are
impermissible to be affected.
4. Learned State counsel is unable to controvert the factual position
and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite
any contrary law.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed in Krishan Kumar Singla (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
24.09.2024
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2022 SCC OnLine SC 536
1995 Supp (1) SCC 18
(2015) 4 SCC 334
3 of 3
