Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012586
CWP-15336-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236
CWP-15336-2021
Date of decision: 28.01.2025
Manjit Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : None for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the orders
dated 16.07.2021 and 19.07.2021, whereby recovery of an amount of
Rs.1,29,200/- has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner, who was working as Staff Nurse since
18.09.1987, was granted benefit of ACP on completion of 14 years of service
w.e.f. 01.11.2006 and subsequently without issuing any notice or granting an
opportunity of hearing, there being no misrepresentation on her part,
recovery has been ordered to be effected on the premise of wrong fixation of
pay by calculating it as Rs.20650/- instead of Rs.20430/-. Reliance was
placed on self declaration form signed by the petitioner, Annexure R-3,
wherein certain questions were answered, which reads thus:-
"The information given be me is correct one. So, the annual
placement of 4/9/14 be granted to me. If any additional payment
is given to me due to the incorrect information as mentioned
above, then I shall be bound to return the additional payment to
the Government."
3. Learned State counsel despite her best efforts has not been able
to demonstrate that there was any information mentioned in the said
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012586
declaration form has been incorrect but it was on account of fault of
mentioning it wrongly as is stated in para 5 of reply by way of affidavit of
Senior Medical Officer dated 05.12.2022 that amount was paid and recovery
whereof is being sought to be made.
4. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2021 had stayed the recovery
recording the submission that the same was being effected without affording
any opportunity of hearing and there being no misrepresentation that has
been alleged on the part of the petitioner.
5. 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, wherein it has been provided that recovery of excess amount
paid to Class-III and Class-IV employee, may not be made, which learned
State counsel has no objection, 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012586
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 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."
6. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Thomas
Daniel vs. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 wherein by relying
on Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and State of
Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
held that generally, the recovery of amounts paid in excess are impermissible
to be affected.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012586
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of Krishan Kumar Singla (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
28.01.2025
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
