Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 27 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011626
CWP-6407-2020 (O&M) - 1-
and other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239
Date of decision: 27.01.2025
CWP-6407-2020
Rajpreet Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others
CWP-13118-2020
Raj Kumar Verma and Others. vs. State of Punjab and Others
CWP-19312-2020
Jagmail Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed
of together by this common judgment.
2. The prayer made in the present petitions is for setting aside the
impugned orders, vide which the recovery has been effected on fixation of pay
anomaly, on basis of orders passed by this Court on 04.11.2016, 29.05.2016 and
25.08.2015, Annexure P-1.
3. Learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioners, who were
working on Class-III posts, restricts their prayer to only recovery to be not
effected in wake of fact that there was neither any mis-representation nor fraud
and the pay fixation had been carried out, in pursuance of the judgment in Rewail
Singh etc. vs. State of Punjab, CWP-17005-1989, decided on 01.03.1995.
4. Learned counsel relies on the policy/instructions dated 20.01.2017,
wherein it has been provided that recovery of excess amount paid to Class-III and
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011626
CWP-6407-2020 (O&M) - 2-
and other connected cases
Class-IV employee, may not be made as also held 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 whereof 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 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011626
CWP-6407-2020 (O&M) - 3-
and other connected cases
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 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."
5. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in 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.
6. Learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to
controvert regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present petitions are disposed of in terms
of Krishan Kumar Singla (supra).
8. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
27.01.2025
M.Kamra
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
