Parvinder Ka der Kaur SUS v. Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others itioner
Case Details
CWP-3777- -2022 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 223 CWP-3777- -2022 Date of Decis f Decision: December 10, 2025 Parvinder Ka der Kaur SUS VERSUS Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others itioner .....Petitioner ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocat dvocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
This Court in a catena of decision “9. Th the e misrep payme for ca interpr errone not re becaus discret e excess amount was not isrepresentation or fraud of the yment was made by the employer r calculating the pay/allowance or terpretation of rule/order which roneous, such excess payment of e t recoverable. This relief against cause of any right of the employees b scretion to provide relief to the em at if cisions has consistently held that if any ot paid on account of any the employee or if such excess cess ciple yer by applying a wrong principle ce or on the basis of a particular ular ich is subsequently found to be be are of emoluments or allowances are ainst the recovery is granted not not ees but in equity, exercising judicial icial that employees from the hardship that PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3777- -2022 4 will be that if that th paid, o time o discret particu ll be caused if the recovery is order at if in a given case, it is proved th at the payment received was in exce id, or in cases where error is detec e of wrong payment, the matter scretion, the courts may on the fa rticular case order for recovery of a rdered. This Court has further held held edge d that an employee had knowledge excess of what was due or wrongly ngly hort etected or corrected within a short icial tter being in the realm of judicial any e facts and circumstances of any of amount paid in excess.” 7. Abrupt recovery of pension w f the sion without the knowledge of the plied) (Emphasis supplied) pensioner, ev ner, even if administratively justifie es far justified, produces consequences far beyond the l the legal sphere. Such an action u ect of ction undermines the very object of providing pe ing pension to the retired employees nomic loyees, i.e. to secure the economic dignity and e and emotional stability in the post- rom a -retirement stage of life. From a financial stan al standpoint, it causes immediate h mined diate hardship as the predetermined plans on the n the basis of legitimate expectation nsion, tation of a certain amount of pension, suddenly bec ly become unfeasible. Moreover, pens ely on r, pensioners often depend entirely on their monthly onthly pension to meet essential hou enses. ial household and medical expenses. Therefore, su ore, sudden deductions disturb their may their financial equilibrium and may lead to inab inability to meet healthcare needs . The needs or other basic expenses. The absence of p e of prior communication generates s ing of rates shock, anxiety, and a feeling of betrayal after l after long years of service. At an ad ctions t an administrative level, such actions erode confid confidence in the fairness and cr er or nd credibility of the employer or government d ment department. Such conduct reflec ty and t reflects procedural insensitivity and weakens the ns the morale among both serving and often ng and retired employees which often results in a la in a lack of motivation to perform we rency rm well. The absence of transparency PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3777- -2022 5 and compassi mpassion diminishes the institution’s h g and ion’s hard earned ethical standing and trust. public trust. 8. In that vein, this Court is of that is of the considered opinion that arbitrary or u ry or un-communicated recoveries co elfare ries contradict the spirit of a welfare administratio stration and demonstrate a lack of hum he of humane consideration. Overall, the effect of su of such abrupt recovery extends b ror; it nds beyond administrative error; it reflects on th s on the sensitivity, fairness, and acco itself. d accountability of governance itself. Therefore, e ore, even where legal remedies e dence dies exist, administrative prudence demands tha ds that any recovery from pension otice, sion be preceded by due notice, consultation, tation, and empathetic handling cons of the g consistent with the dignity of the retired emplo employee. 9.
Arguments
Ms. Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advo l, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) **** 1. The present writ petition has bee of the as been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution tution of India with a prayer for issu or or issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the in the nature of certiorari for quash ing to quashing the pay slip pertaining to January, 202 y, 2022 (Annexure P-5), orders date .2022 rs dated 21.01.2022 and 27.01.2022 (Annexure P ure P-6) whereby the pension of the p d and f the petitioner has been reduced and recovery has ry has been effected without affordin being fording her any opportunity of being heard. Furthe Further praying for issuance of a w mus f a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the ng the respondents to release salary b ion as lary by consider the basic pension as Rs.34,134/- - as depicted and released to petitio mber, petitioner in the month of December, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3777- -2022 2 2021(Annexu nnexure P-4). Further praying for iss ure of for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition r ition restricting and restraining the r g any the respondents from affecting any recovery from ry from the pension of petitioner, as n been r, as no orders of recovery have been ever commun mmunicated. 2. Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner su ner superannuated from the service on as ervice of respondent-Corporation as Upper Divisi Division Clerk on 30.06.2010. Therea ued to Thereafter, the petitioner continued to draw her pen er pension as fixed by the competent ension petent authority while issuing pension payment orde nt order. To the utter surprise in the y ars of n the year 2022 i.e. after 12 years of her retiremen irement, recovery was affected withou ledge ithout any information or knowledge of the petitio petitioner, as is discernible from Ann for Annexure P-6. Learned counsel for the petitione titioner further submits that the case uarely e case of the petitioner is squarely covered by th d by the judgment passed by this Cour tled as s Court in CWP-32661-2024, titled as Sajjan Kum umar Goyal Versus State of Har ed on Haryana and others, decided on 04.11.2025. 025. Learned counsel further submit g the ubmits that petitioner is getting the reduced pens d pension since 21.01.2022. 3. Learned counsel further subm se is submits that the present case is squarely cove ly covered by the judgement rendered Court dered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih at the asih 2015(1) SCT 195 and that the impugned rec ned recovery is in direct violation of t by the on of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Ape le Apex Court. Reliance is also pla of the so placed on the judgements of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad 024 asad Singh v. State of Bihar 2024 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3777- -2022 3 AIR Suprem reme Court 3950 and Thomas Dani SCC Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine SC 5 SC 536. 4. Per contra, learned counsel fo s that sel for the respondents submits that only an amou amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- wa tioner was recovered from the petitioner and thereafte ereafter interim stay was granted by arned ted by this Court. However, learned counsel is n is not in a position to controvert of the rovert the fact that the case of the petitioner is ner is squarely covered by the judgme arned judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for th l for the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned coun gone d counsel for the parties and gone through the c h the case file with their able assistance istance. 6. In Thomas Daniel v. State of Ke SCT of Kerala and others, 2022 (2) SCT 722, a two- -Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Su rough ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice S. Ab S. Abdul Nazeer, observed that no mount at no recovery of the excess amount paid to an o an employee can be effected es as no ted especially when there was no misrepresenta resentation on the part of the em levant the employee concerned. Relevant paragraph of aph of the said judgment is reproduced duced as under:-
Decision
In view of the above, the present ith the resent petition is disposed of with the following dir ing directions:- i) Respondent(s)/com ted to )/competent authority is directed to treat the writ petition as er the on as representation and consider the claim of the petitioner and terms er and pass a speaking order in terms of Sajjan Kumar Goyal er an oyal (supra), after affording her an opportunity to be heard, onths heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving order. ceiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision take yed to n taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3777- -2022 6 ii) The Respondents ar mount ents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petiti at the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum fro of the um from the date of institution of the present writ petition until until the date of actual payment. 10. Pe Pending miscellaneous applicatio stands lication(s), if any, shall also stands ed of. disposed of. December 10 P.C 10, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document