Chanan Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 3646 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Chanan Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 25 March, 2025

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040939



 CWP-7120-2003 (O&M)                 - 1-
 CWP-7757-2003 (O&M)

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
551
                                                      CWP-7120-2003 (O&M)
                                                      Date of decision: 25.03.2025

Chanan Kaur and Others
                                                                       ....Petitioners
                                Versus

State of Punjab and Others
                                                                     ...Respondents

                                                      CWP-7757-2003 (O&M)

Satya Rani and Others
                                                                       ....Petitioners
                                Versus

State of Punjab and Another
                                                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                   *****
Present : None for the petitioners

       Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG Punjab
                               *****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed

of together by this common judgment.

2. Prayer made in the present petitions is for directing the respondents to

grant dearness allowance on the family pension to the petitioners.

3. In the index of the petition, reference is made to pendency of CWP-

2730-2003 titled as Jit Kaur and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another,

which along with eight other petitions stand disposed of by this Court on

09.08.2023, which reads thus:

" By this order, I propose to dispose of nine writ petitions, as a common question of facts and law are involved in the same. For deciding these petitions, facts are taken from CWP No.1016 of 2003 for convenience.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040939

CWP-7120-2003 (O&M) - 2- CWP-7757-2003 (O&M)

The petitioners in the present petitions are widows/widowers and their wards have been given appointment on compassionate ground on the death of their spouses. They have prayed before this Court to direct the respondents not to recover the dearness allowance paid to them in excess. It is submitted that the amount paid to them ought not have been recovered as there was no fraud or any misrepresentation by the employee and have relied upon the judgement passed in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1995(1) SCT 668) to submit that where there is no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, the amount paid cannot be recovered. In Union of India Vs. Rekha Majhi (2000 (2) SCT 676 SC), the Apex Court held that the widow who is the alone bread earner of the family would not be in a position to pay back the excess amount which has already been drawn erroneously and considering the financial condition, the recovery of the excess pension paid to the said respondent was held to be unjustified on legal and equitable grounds. In State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer ) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 ultimately the supreme Court examine the question whether the recovery can be effected to the amount which has erroneously been paid to the Government servant and reach to the following conclusion as stated herein below:

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 decision referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summaries the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

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 wrongly been required to discharge duties of higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightly been required to work against an inferior post.

v. In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if may be from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040939

CWP-7120-2003 (O&M) - 3-

CWP-7757-2003 (O&M)

the employer's right to recover.

Having noticed the aforesaid judgment and considering the facts of the present case, where all the petitioners in the bunch of petition are commonly aggrieved of the action of the respondent in making recoveries from the pension paid to them for the dearness relief amount is found to be unjustified. The order dated 01.12.2001 and the order dated 14.05.2001 are accordingly quashed and set aside to the aforesaid extent of not making any recovery from the petitioners. In cases where there was interim order the same shall be treated as having become absolute in terms of the aforesaid conclusions and in cases where the recovery has already been affected, the same shall be refunded. The exercise of refunding the amount and payment of arrears shall be done within a period of three months. However, interest shall not be required to be paid.

The present petitions are accordingly allowed."

4. Learned State counsel has not been able to resist for disposal of the

present petition in terms of the aforesaid.

5. Ordered accordingly.

6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

                                                   (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
                                                         JUDGE
25.03.2025
M.Kamra

      Whether speaking/reasoned                :      Yes / No
      Whether reportable                       :      Yes / No




                                      3 of 3