Balwinder Kaur Rawal vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 6486 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Kaur Rawal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 December, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

201
                                             CWP-13675-2007
                                             Date of decision :19.12.2025
Baljinder Kaur and others                                    .....Petitioners

                                  V/S

State of Punjab and others                                  ....Respondents

CORAM :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:    Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate for
            Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, D.A.G., Punjab.
                                  ****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of

certiorari, quashing the order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P-1),

whereby the pay of the petitioners has been re-fixed after a period of

more than 09 years and huge recoveries have been imposed on the

petitioners which the respondents have started effecting @ Rs.1,000/-

per month from the salary of the petitioners without affording any

opportunity of hearing to them.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,

are that the petitioners joined the respondent-Department as Clerk and at

the time of their promotion as Junior Assistant, they were placed in the

pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/-. Subsequently, 4th Punjab Pay Commission

gave its recommendations, vide which the pay of the employees were

revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Consequent upon the recommendations of the

1 of 10

Punjab Pay Commission, the State of Punjab issued notification dated

16.01.1998, vide which the pay rules were amended and pay of the

petitioners (Junior Assistant) was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 from pay

scale of Rs.1500-2700/- to Rs.5000-8100/- and the petitioners were

given the said revised pay scale. Thereafter, after a lapse of 09 years, the

respondents have passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2007, vide

which the pay of the petitioners has been revised and they have been

placed in the pay scale of Rs.4400-7000/-, whereas no such scale was

existing at that time and there was no amendment made in the rules and

it has been ordered that the Clerks/Junior Assistants, who were

promoted w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 19.05.1998, arrears and salary drawn by

them prior to 19.05.1998 are exempted from recovery, however,

recovery has been ordered to be effected for the subsequent period i.e.

from 19.05.1998 onwards. In pursuance thereof, the respondents,

without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, have started effecting recovery

from the pay of the petitioners @ Rs.1000/- per month. Hence, the

instant petition.

3. On the last date of hearing i.e. 09.12.2025, the following

order was passed :-

"The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P-1), whereby the pay of the petitioners has been refixed after a period of more than nine years and huge recoveries have been imposed upon them.

While admitting the present petition and issuing notice regarding stay on 31.08.2007, further recovery from

2 of 10

the petitioners was ordered to be stayed and the said order was made absolute vide order dated 10.01.2008.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from Ms. Alka Chopra, Sr. Assistant, submits that all the petitioners except petitioner No.6-Balwinder Kaur Rawal, have retired from service and all the retiral dues have been released to them and the present petition qua them has been rendered infructuous.

Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous qua petitioners No.1 to 5 and 7 & 8.

Learned State counsel seeks time to get instructions with regard to petitioner No.6 in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015(1) S.C.T., 195.

Adjourned to 19.12.2025"

4. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner No.6 is still

in service and has been promoted to Group 'A' post.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioner No.6 is not questioning the re-fixation of pay, however, the

action of the respondents making recovery from her and that too without

issuing any notice and affording any opportunity of hearing to her, is

totally illegal and arbitrary.

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

through the relevant documents.

7. The only stand taken in the written statement filed by the

respondents is that the pay of the petitioners was re-fixed following

issuance of Notification dated 04.09.2000, vide which new pay structure

was specified for the cadre of Clerks/Junior Assistants which was

uniformally applicable to the such cadre in the State so in this view of

the matter, the petitioners were not discriminated in any way. The order

for recovery of excess payment was issued following irregularities

3 of 10

pointed out in the audit conducted by the office of Accountant General

(Audit), Punjab and therefore, the excess payment made to the

petitioners due to wrong pay fixation has been ordered to be recovered.

8. The facts and circumstances of the present case suggests

that it is not the case of the respondents that it was due to some fraud or

misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners that they were granted

excess payment but it was granted by the respondents on their own. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Thomas Daniel Vs.

State of Kerala and others : 2022 AIR Supreme Court 2153 has held

that if there is no misrepresentation on the part of the employee, no

recovery can be effected from him/her. In the said judgment, it has been

held as under :-

"9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.

10. In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 this Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account

4 of 10

of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus :

"5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation, the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs."

11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others (2006) 11 SCC 709 this Court considered an identical question as under:

"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7- 6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 :

(1994) 27 ATC 121] , Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):

(a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.

5 of 10

(b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.

28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.

29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11-9- 2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of

6 of 10

India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made."

12. In Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (2009) 3 SCC 475 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/ understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus:

"59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are

7 of 10

of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made."

13. In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus:

"8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.

xxx xxx xxx

18. 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

8 of 10

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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."

14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General.

15. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified."

9. Moreover, the recovery has been effected by the

respondents after a lapse of 09 years and that too in violation of the

principles of natural justice as neither any show cause notice was issued

to the petitioners nor they were granted an opportunity of personal

hearing.

9 of 10

10. In view of the above, petitioner No.6 is also required to be

treated at par with other petitioners and as per settled law, no recovery

can be made from her as there was no fraud or misrepresentation on her

part and it was due to wrong fixation of pay by the respondents that she

was given excess payment. Consequently, the present petition is partly

allowed qua petitioner No.6 and it is directed that no recovery shall be

effected from petitioner No.6 on account of refixation of pay in

pursuance to the impugned order dated 17.01.2007.

19.12.2025                                            (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal                                                 JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                      Yes/No




                                10 of 10