[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 March, 2026
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
CWP-11319-2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
212
Date of decision: 10.03.2026
1. CWP-18410-2015 (O&M)
Baljeet Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
2. CWP-7381-2019 (O&M)
Ashok Kumar Sharma
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
3. CWP-11319-2016 (O&M)
Narinder Pal Chopra
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
for Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-18410-2015 and CWP-11319-2016.
Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-7381-2019.
(through video conferencing)
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Parminder S. Kaul, Advocate
1 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2026 09:37:33 :::
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
CWP-11319-2016 2
for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-18410-2015
for respondent No.2 in CWP-7381-2019
and for the respondent in CWP-11319-2016.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of CWP
Nos.CWP-18410-2015, CWP-7381-2018 and CWP-11319-2016, as
common questions of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For
the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-18410-2015.
2. PRAYER
2.1. Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-18410-2015) filed under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated
26.6.2015 (Annexure P-20), whereby the recovery of Rs.8,21,263/- has
been ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner and for
quashing the impugned orders dated 22.7.2014 (Annexures P-12 and P-
13 respectively) whereby the pay-scale of the petitioner has been re-
fixed/reduced w.e.f. 1987 and 1996 respectively, on the false ground
that in separate CWPs No.1267 of 1999 and CWP No.9718 of 2000, this
Court has passed orders for re-fixing the seniority even when no order
of recovery was ever passed by this Court. Another prayer has been
made to issue interim direction for staying the operation and effect of
the impugned order dated 26.06.2015 (Annexure P-20), whereby the
recovery of Rs.8,21,263/- has been ordered to be recovered from the
salary of the petitioner, during the pendency of the present writ petition.
2 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
3. FACTS OF THE CASE
3.1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
initially appointed as a Clerk in the Punjab Water Resources and
Development Corporation (formerly Punjab State Tubewell
Corporation) on 20.01.1979 against a regular vacant post through the
process of selection undertaken by the competent authority. The name of
the petitioner had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he
was selected by the Departmental Selection Committee headed by the
Superintending Engineer. The services of the petitioner were regularized
in the year 1983 w.e.f. 26.10.1982 vide order dated 19.04.1983
(Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the first
time, made it mandatory for advertising all posts and the earlier practice
of calling/requisitioning from Employment Exchanges on the basis of
enrollment was stopped. The petitioner was appointed prior to the
direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of his name
being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Subsequently, on
17.02.1992, the petitioner was appointed/promoted and posted as Senior
Clerk and placed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986
vide order dated 17.02.1992 (Annexure P-3). Later, the Standing
Committee of the respondent/Corporation in its meeting held on
25.06.1996 decided to re-regularize the services of the petitioner and
other Clerks from the initial date of their appointment and accordingly,
the petitioner was re-regularized w.e.f. 20.1.1979 as discernible from
3 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively. In the year 2004, the petitioner
was further promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the pay scale of
Rs.1560-2640/- w.e.f. 20.01.1989 and the office order dated 21.06.2004
(Annexure P-6) also reflected that the petitioner stood regularized w.e.f.
from 20.01.1979. In the year 1999, one Darshana Sharma, who was
senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Clerks had filed CWP-1267-1999,
seeking correction of her seniority viz-a-viz other senior Clerks to her.
Similarly, another Clerk namely Amarjit Kaur filed CWP-9718-2000,
for correction of her seniority by claiming that her seniority had been
wrongly fixed as compared to other Clerks, who were shown as senior
to them. During the proceedings in those writ petitions, the respondent
Corporation altered its stand and initiated an exercise for refixation of
seniority of certain employees including the petitioner. Pursuant to the
said exercise, the respondent/Corporation passed the orders dated
22.07.2014 (Annexures P-12 and P-13, respectively) whereby the pay
scale of the petitioner was re-fixed with retrospective effect on the basis
of re-determination of seniority. At the time of grant of revised benefits,
the petitioner was required to submit an undertaking to the effect that in
the event of any excess payment being detected later on, the same
would be liable to be recovered from him. Subsequently, a show cause
notice dated 18.05.2015 was issued to the petitioner proposing recovery
of Rs.8,21,263/- on account of alleged excess salary paid to him. In
response thereto, the petitioner submitted the reply asserting that he had
4 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
actually discharged duties on the higher posts and recovery was
impermissible in law. Despite the reply submitted by the petitioner, the
respondents passed the impugned order dated 26.06.2015 (Annexure P-
20) directing recovery from the salary of the petitioner. Aggrieved
against the orders of refixation of pay and the consequential recovery,
the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the settled
principles of law. It has been argued that the petitioner had been duly
appointed against a regular post through a selection process and his
services had been regularized long back with effect from the initial date
of appointment. It is further submitted that the petitioner had actually
worked on the higher posts and had discharged duties attached to those
posts for several years and therefore, the salary drawn by him cannot be
termed as excess payment warranting recovery.
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the
attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the respondent-
Corporation in CWP-1267-1999 i.e. Darshana Sharma's case and
submitted that the respondents had themselves taken a categorical stand
that the initial appointments of the Clerks were made against substantive
posts available with the Corporation. It is contended that once the
5 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
appointment was made against a substantive vacancy, the service
rendered from the date of initial appointment is liable to be counted for
the purpose of seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that during the course of the said proceedings, the
respondent/Corporation changed its stand and placed on record a fresh
decision through C.M. No.5611/12 of 2006, wherein it was stated that
the earlier seniority lists dated 27.09.1991 and 14.01.1999 were
defective as the ad hoc service of certain Clerks had been wrongly taken
into account for the purpose of determining seniority. It is argued that
the said proceedings were undertaken without affording any opportunity
of hearing to the present petitioner, yet the respondents subsequently
proceeded to re-fix his seniority and pay with retrospective effect. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association vs State of
Maharashtra and others, 1990(2) SCC 715, to contend that where an
appointment is made against a substantive vacancy in accordance with
the rules, the service rendered from the date of initial appointment is
liable to be counted for the purpose of seniority.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the
recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner is contrary to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq
Masih and others, 2015(1) SCT 195 wherein it has been held that
6 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
categories, or where the excess payment has been made for a long
period without any fault of the employee, is impermissible in law.
Reliance is also placed on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 2024 AIR Supreme
Court 3950 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 536.
4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that
the petitioner was never a party to the earlier writ petitions relating to
seniority and therefore any decision taken in those proceedings cannot
adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. He has further submitted
that the undertaking allegedly obtained from the petitioner was procured
without disclosing the changed stand of the respondents and, therefore,
the same cannot form the basis for recovery.
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended
that there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
He has further highlighted that it is not a case that some excess payment
has been paid on account of some increment. The recovery is sought to
be effected from the salary paid to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner
was misrepresented by the respondent/Corporation in furnishing the
undertaking on the pretext that a written statement supporting the cause
of the petitioner has already been filed before this Court.
7 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
5.1. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the
respondent/Corporation has submitted that the controversy involved in
the present writ petition stands settled in view of the earlier litigation
pertaining to fixation of seniority in the cadre of Clerks of the
respondent/Corporation. It is contended that in Darshana Sharma's
case (supra) the issue before this Court was whether the service
rendered on ad hoc basis could be counted for the purpose of seniority
and consequential promotion. However, in compliance with the
directions issued by this Court in Darshana Sharma's case (supra) as
well as in Amarjit Kaur's case (supra) (CWP-9718-2000), the
respondent/Corporation undertook the exercise of recasting the seniority
list of the concerned employees. Consequent upon the refixation of
seniority, the pay scale and promotional benefits earlier granted to
certain employees, including the petitioner, required re-determination
and therefore, the impugned orders of refixation of pay and recovery
have been passed. Learned Senior counsel for the
respondents/Corporation has submitted that the issue involved in the
present petition is no longer res integra. In support of the arguments, he
has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench
of this Court in LPA-1176-2021 titled as Raghbir Kaur vs. Punjab
Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Limited
and others, decided on 18.11.2024, wherein while considering a similar
8 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
controversy, this Court upheld the action of the respondent/Corporation
in effecting recovery on the basis of an undertaking furnished by the
employee concerned. He has further relied upon the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in Chamel Singh vs State of Haryana and
another, 1995(1) RSJ 382, wherein it has been categorically held that
ad hoc service per se cannot be counted to determine an appointee's
seniority in the cadre.
5.2. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents/Corporation
has further submitted that the recovery is legal and justified as the
petitioner himself had furnished a specific undertaking by way of an
affidavit dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure R-2/1). In the said undertaking,
the petitioner explicitly agreed that if the decision in the pending writ
petitions regarding seniority went against him, the
respondent/Corporation would be entitled to recover any excess amount.
He has further argued that since the benefit was "conditional," the
protection of Rafiq Masih's case (supra) does not apply.
5.3. At this stage, learned counsel for the
respondents/Corporation submits that he is not in a position to
controvert the fact that after recasting the seniority of the petitioner, he
was reverted to lower post.
6. CONSIDERATION
6.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case with their able assistance.
9 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
7. FINDINGS OF THE COURT
7.1. The primary question which arises for consideration in the
present case is whether recovery of alleged excess salary can be effected
from the petitioner on the basis of refixation of seniority and pay scale,
particularly when the petitioner had actually discharged duties on the
higher posts.
7.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed
in the year 1979 through a selection process and his services were
regularized in the year 1983. It is also an admitted position that the
petitioner had worked on the promoted posts and had discharged the
functions related to those posts for several years.
7.3. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had
played any fraud or misrepresentation in the alleged wrong fixation of
seniority or pay.
7.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra)
has clearly held that recovery of excess payment from employees
belonging to lower cadres, or recovery relating to payments made for a
long period of time without any fault of the employee, would be
impermissible in law. The relevant extract of the said judgment, reads as
follows:
12. "....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 decisions referred to herein above, we
may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few
10 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III
and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'
service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of
recovery.
(iii) Recovery from 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
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance
of the employer's right to recover.
7.5. Further, a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and
others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2799 of 2008
decided on 22.05.2009 dealt with the issue of recovery of excess
payment made to an employee in extenso. It was held that while the
same can be allowed in case of fraud or misrepresentation resulting in
disbursement of more than the deserved amount, however, when there is
no element of deception on part of the employee, it would be
inequitable to effect recovery. Speaking through Justice T.S. Thakur, the
following was held:
"Cases involving recovery of benefits received by the
employees on account of misrepresentation or erroneous
application of rules, regulations, circulars or instructions
issued by the Government have often come up before the
Courts including the Apex Court. The consistent view taken
11 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
as regards the recovery of such benefits erroneously
extended to the employees without the employee being, in
any way, guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or deception
is that such recovery would be unfair inequitable and
against justice and good conscience. In Bihar State
Electricity Board and another Vs. Bijay Bahadur and
another, 2000 (10) SCC 99, even when their Lordships
recorded a finding that the employee did not possess the
requisite qualification for the benefit granted to him and was
not, therefore, entitled to any relaxation of the Rules held that
it would be against the concept of fairness, equity, justice and
good conscience to recover the amount received by him in
consequence of the benefit granted to him. Concurring with
the observations made by their Lordships' in Sahib Ram's
case (supra), the Court observed:-
"We do record our concurrence with the observations of
this Court in Sahib Ram case (supra) and come to the of
conclusion that since payments have been made without
any representation or a misrepresentation, the appellant
Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct
or recover the excess amount paid by way of increments
at an earlier point of time. The act or acts on the part of
the appellant Board cannot under any circumstances be
said to be in consonance with equity, good conscience
and justice. The concept of fairness has been given a go-
by. As such the actions initiated for recovery cannot be
sustained under any circumstances."
In Sahib Ram's case (supra), referred to earlier, also the
employee did not possess the requisite qualification but
had received the salary on revised scales. Their Lordships
however, held that the benefit flowing to the employee was
not on account of any misrepresentation but on account of
legal construction made for which the employee cannot be
found fault with. The Court observed :-
"Admittedly the appellant does not possess the
required educational qualifications. Under the
circumstances, the appellant would not be entitled to
the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him
12 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the
appellant had been paid his salary on revised scale.
However, it is not on account of any
misrepresentation made by the appellant that the
benefit of higher pay-scale was given to him but by
wrong construction made by the Principal for
which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault.
Under the circumstances, the amount paid till the
date may not be recovered from the appellant. The
principle of equal pay for equal work would not
apply to the scales prescribed by the University
Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly
without any order as to costs."
(emphasis added)
7.6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 3
SCC 475, speaking through Justice B.N. Agrawal, opined as follows:
"27. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief
against recovery of excess payment of
emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not
paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the
part of the employee and (b) if such excess payment was
made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for
calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a
particular interpretation of rule/order, which is
subsequently found to be erroneous. The relief against
recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in
the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion
to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be
caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is
proved that the employee had knowledge that the
payment received was in excess of what was due or
13 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or
corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the
matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts
may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular
case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess.
See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668 :
1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of
India, 1994(2) SCT 296 : [1994]2 SCC 521; Union of
India v. M. Bhaskar, 1996(4) SCT 57 : [1996]4 SCC
416; V. Ganga Ram v. Regional Jt., Director, 1997(3) SCT
72 : [1997]6 SCC 139; Col. B.J. Akkara [Retd.] v.
Government of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC
709; Purshottam Lal Das & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2006(4)
SCT 537 : [2006]11 SCC 492; Punjab National Bank &
Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Anr., 2006(4) SCT 570 : [2006]8
SCC 647 and Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Bijay
Bahadur & Anr., [2000] 10 SCC 99."
(emphasis added)
7.7. The ratio culled out in Syed Abdul Qadri's case (supra) has
also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad
Singh's case (supra).
7.8. In Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 (2)
SCT 722, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that no recovery of the excess amount paid to an employee can be
effected especially when there was no misrepresentation on the part of
the employee concerned. Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the
following was held:
14 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
"9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently
held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of
any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such
excess payment was made by the employer by applying a
wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on
the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order
which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess
payment of emoluments or allowances are not
recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not
because of any right of the employees but in equity,
exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the
employees from the hardship that will be caused if the
recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a
given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge
that the payment received was in excess of what was due or
wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or
corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter
being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on
the facts and circumstances of any particular case order
for recovery of amount paid in excess."
(emphasis added)
7.9. In the present case, the petitioner had rendered service on
the higher posts and had drawn salary accordingly. It is a settled law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover v. State of
Haryana, 1983 AIR SC 1060 and Arindam Chattopadhyay and others
v. State of West Bengal and others, Civil Appeal No.25021 of 2013,
that an employee working on a higher post cannot be denied the salary
attached thereto. It is not a case where excess payment is made on
15 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
account of some wrongly applied increment, therefore, the salary paid
and utilized by an employee for discharging duties on a higher post,
cannot be, under any circumstance, be recovered. The alleged excess
payment, if any, was the result of administrative decisions taken by the
respondents themselves and not on account of any misrepresentation or
fraud committed by the petitioner.
7.10. The impugned action of the respondents in directing
recovery after several years of service is clearly contrary to the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is also violative
of the principles of fairness and equity. Consequently, the impugned
orders dated 22.07.2014 (Annexures P-12 and P-13, respectively)
whereby the pay scale of the petitioner was re-fixed and the impugned
order dated 26.06.2015 (Annexure P-20) directing recovery of
Rs.8,21,263/- from the salary of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law.
8. ORDER
8.1. Accordingly, all the captioned writ petitions are allowed.
The impugned orders dated 22.07.2014 (Annexures P-12 and P-13,
respectively) and 26.06.2015 (Annexure P-20) are hereby quashed.
8.2. The respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery
from the petitioner(s). If any amount has already been recovered either
from the salary or from the retiral dues of the petitioner(s), the same
shall be refunded to them along with interest @ 6% per annum from the
16 of 17
CWP-18410-2015
CWP-7381-2019
date of such recovery till its actual realization, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
8.3. The respondents are further directed to release all pending
admissible dues of the petitioner(s), if any, within a period of three
months along with interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the
date the said amount became due till its actual realization.
8.4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
8.5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
10.03.2026
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
17 of 17
