Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029297
-1-
CWP-19820
19820-2002 and connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
488 (3 cases) Date of decision: 01.03.2025
CWP-19820
19820-2002
Jagtar Singh and others vs. State off Punjab and Others
CWP-12067
12067-2003
Karmo Devi and others vs. State off Punjab and Others
13113-2003
CWP-13113
Surinder Kaur and others vs. State off Punjab and Others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Ms. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being
disposed of together and for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from
CWP-19820
19820-2002.
2. The petitioners are the family pensioners and recovery was
sought from the pension of the amount paid as dearness relief since
14.05.2001 whereby their carry home pension was reduced without any
show cause notice, which the Division Bench, vide order dated
14.01.2003,, had stayed.
3. Learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioner
petitioners, restricts
her prayer to only with regard to recovery as iit could not have been
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029297
CWP-19820
19820-2002 and connected cases
effected in wake of fact that there was neither any mis
mis-representation nor
fraud and thus relies on the policy/instructions dated 20.01.2017, wherein
it has been provided that recovery of amount paid in excess, may not be
made as also held in Krishan Kumar Singla vs. State of Punjab and
Others,, CWP-11341-2003,
CWP 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 wasas 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 responsi
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 an 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 interpretati
interpretation of the rules, such a benefit
was not due. It does not require much
imagination to say that additional monetary
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029297
CWP-19820
19820-2002 and connected cases
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
ler 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
ion 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."
4. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Thomas
Daniel vs. State of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536
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
334, Hon'ble the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029297
CWP-19820
19820-2002 and connected cases
Supreme Court held that generally, the recovery of amounts paid in excess
are impermissible to be effected.
5. Learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to
controvert the factual
factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petitions are disposed of
in terms of the judgment passed in Krishan Kumar Singla (supra).
7. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file
files.
01.03.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
