Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032899
CWP-115-2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
494
CWP-115-2003
Date of decision: 07.03.2025
Balwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present: Mr. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the impugned
order dated 06.01.2002, by which respondents had decided to withdraw the
advance increment allowed to the petitioners for higher qualification and
effecting recovery thereof.
2. Learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, restricts his
prayer to only recovery to be not effected in wake of fact that there was
neither any mis-representation nor fraud and recovery of excess amount paid
to the employee(s), 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,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032899
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being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any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 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032899
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."
3. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment 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.
4. 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.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of Krishan Kumar Singla (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
07.03.2025
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
