Sukhjinder Singh Singh and others v. State of Punjab an njab and others CWP
Case Details
CWP-9768-2004 2004(O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN T AT CHANDIGAR PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH 741 Sukhjinder Singh Singh and others Versus State of Punjab an njab and others CWP-9768-2004 (O&M) .2025 Date of decision: 22.04.2025 ....Petitioner itioners ...Respondent ondents CORAM: HON
Legal Reasoning
onsideration is not about the legality o “7. The issue falling for our conside “7. T nd the financial benefit granted to th e retrospective promotion and the the r he issue for consideration is whethe appe appellants on 10.05.2017. The issu ed to the appellants while they were i recov recovery of the amount extended to eir retirement and that too withou service is justified after their re servi earing.(cid:1) affording any opportunity of hearing affor tena of been settled by this Court in catena o The law in this regard has been s 8. Th aryana, again; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana judgments rendered time and again; judgm f India, yam Babu Verma vs. Union of India (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18, Shyam B (199 CC 416 ndia vs. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 41 (199 (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India vs and in l Jt. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139 and i and V and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. D Kerala r of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Keral a recent decision in the matter of Th a rec . & Ors., (2022) SCC online SC 536. & Or taken the view that if the exces 9. T 9. This Court has consistently tak nt of any misrepresentation or fraud o amount was not paid on account of a amou such excess payment was made by th the p the part of the employee or if such e rong principle for calculating th empl employer by applying a wrong is of a particular interpretation o pay/allowance or on the basis of pay/a tly found to be erroneous, such exces rule/order, which is subsequently fo rule/ lowances are not recoverable. It is hel paym payments of emoluments or allowan overy is not because of any right of th that such relief against the recovery that sing judicial discretion to provide relie employee but in equity, exercising ju empl ship that will be caused if the recover to th to the employee from the hardship th is ordered.(cid:1) is ord 10. In Thomas Daniel (supra), this 10. I 11, 12 and 13: 11, 1 excess raud on by the ng the tion of excess is held t of the e relief ecovery aras 10, ), this Court has held thus in paras 10 strained ded pay r by the part of “10. In Sahib Ram v. State recovery of payment which w scale on account of wrong con authority concerned, without the employees. It was held thu “5. Admittedly the appellant educational qualifications. appellant would not be entitle erred in granting him the relaxation, the appellant had b scale. However, it is not on a made by the appellant that th was given to him but by w Principal for which the appell Under the circumstances the a recovered from the appellant. equal work would not apply of Haryana, this Court restraine hich was given under the upgraded pa ng construction of relevant order by th ithout any misrepresentation on part o eld thus:(cid:1) equired pellant does not possess the require es the th the circumstances ons. Under rincipal entitled to the relaxation. The Principa date of the relaxation. Since the date o revised had been paid his salary on the revise entation t on account of any misrepresentatio y scale that the benefit of the higher pay scal by the by wrong construction made by th at fault. appellant cannot be held to be at faul not be s the amount paid till date may not b pay for ellant. The principle of equal pay fo by the apply to the scales prescribed by th ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9768-2004 2004(O&M) - 3- 2 this partly of any r by ance or hich is mission. The appeal is allowed partl University Grants Commissio costs.”(cid:1) without any order as to costs.” (Retd.) v. Government of India2 thi 11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd ntical question as under: Court considered an identical q should o be considered is whether relief shoul “27. The last question to be co ts made recovery of the excess payments mad be granted against the recove of the ng interpretation/understanding of th on account of the wrong int granted . This Court has consistently grante circular dated 7-6-1999. This ent of ry of excess wrong payment o relief against recovery of llowing from an employee, if the followin emoluments/allowances from aryana (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryan conditions are fulfilled (vide m Babu : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Bab [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 C (L&S) a [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L& Verma v. Union of India [(199 haskar 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaska 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], ngaram SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SC (L&S) [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S v. Regional Jt. Director [(1997 1652]):(cid:1) (a) The excess payment was misrepresentation or fraud on (b) Such excess payment w applying a wrong principle for on the basis of a particular inte subsequently found to be erron 28. Such relief, restraining bac granted by courts not because but in equity, in exercise of employees from the hardship implemented. A government lower rungs of service would receives for the upkeep of his payment for a long period, believing that he is entitled to recover the excess payment w relief is granted in that beha knowledge that the payment was due or wrongly paid, or corrected within a short time o grant relief against recovery. judicial discretion, courts may of any particular case refus recovery.(cid:1) 29. On the same principle, pen that wrong payments should are in a more disadvantageou service employees. Any atte payment would cause undue h are not guilty of any misrepres excess payment. NPA was purposes of stepping up, due implementing departments. W nt was not made on account of an ud on the part of the employee.(cid:1) ent was made by the employer b ple for calculating the pay/allowance o lar interpretation of rule/order, which i e erroneous.(cid:1) ment, is ing back recovery of excess payment, i loyees, ecause of any right in the employees eve the se of judicial discretion to relieve th very is dship that will be caused if recovery i in the nment servant, particularly one in th ents he ld spend whatever emoluments h excess of his family. If he receives an exces nuinely eriod, he would spend it, genuinel ction to itled to it. As any subsequent action t ent will cause undue hardship to him to him, ee had t behalf. But where the employee ha of what ment received was in excess of wha cted or aid, or where the error is detected o ill not time of wrong payment, courts will no ealm of very. The matter being in the realm o stances ts may on the facts and circumstance against refuse to grant such relief agains irection le, pensioners can also seek a directio sioners hould not be recovered, as pensioner d to in- tageous position when compared to in wrong y attempt to recover excess wron itioners ndue hardship to them. The petitioner d to the srepresentation or fraud in regard to th ay, for was added to minimum pay, fo by the , due to a wrong understanding by th ew that nts. We are therefore of the view tha ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9768-2004 2004(O&M) - 4- been made the respondents shall not reco towards pension in pursuance the issue of the clarificatory c as any excess payment made a obviously the Union of India excess as the validity of the s as pensioners have been put o calculations earlier made.”(cid:1) 12. In Syed Abdul Qadir v. was sought to be recovered w teachers on account of mista prevailing Bihar Nationalise Conditions) Rules, 1983. The even if it were to be held that t the benefit of additional incr amount should not be recovere without any misrepresentation held that the appellants canno situation and recovery of the ordered, especially when th retired. The court observed tha prohibited by courts where the fraud on the part of the employ by has b interpretation/understanding o thus:(cid:1) “59. Undoubtedly, the excess appellant teachers was not bec fraud on their part and the ap that the amount that was bei what they were entitled to. I mention here that the Finance affidavit, admitted that it was The excess payment mad interpretation of the Rule th which the appellants cannot whole confusion was becau carelessness of the officials c Bihar. Learned counsel appea teachers submitted that majori retired or are on the verge of facts and circumstances of th hardship to the appellant teac recovery of the amount that appellant teachers should be m 13. In State of Punjab v. R wherein this court examined t the State to recover the mone the beneficiary employees i without any fault or misrepr ot recover any excess payments mad s made 999 till uance of the circular dated 7-6-1999 ti Insofar atory circular dated 11-9-2001. Insofa ade after the circular dated 11-9-2001 2001, ver the f India will be entitled to recover th eld and f the said circular has been upheld an wrong n put on notice in regard to the wron v. State of Bihar3 excess paymen ayment ellants- red which was made to the appellants tion of mistake and wrong interpretation o Service onalised Secondary School (Servic ded that . The appellants therein contended tha titled to d that the appellants were not entitled t excess l increment on promotion, the exces en paid covered from them, it having been pai e Court tation or fraud on their part. The Cour such a cannot be held responsible in such not be of the excess payment should not b quently hen the employee has subsequentl overy is ved that in general parlance, recovery i ation or ere there exists no misrepresentation o ayment employee and when the excess paymen wron wrong as held ding of a Rule or Order. It was hel applying a d to the ation or wledge re than lace to ounter- eir part. wrong em, for her, the ce and ment of ppellant e either peculiar oid any that no to the xcess amount that has been paid to th ot because of any misrepresentation o the appellants also had no knowledg as being paid to them was more tha d to. It would not be out of place t inance Department had, in its counter it was a bona fide mistake on their par the result of wron made was ule that was applicable to them, fo annot be held responsible. Rather, th because of inaction, negligence an cials concerned of the Government o l appearing on behalf of the appellan majority of the beneficiaries have eithe rge of it. Keeping in view the peculia of the case at hand and to avoid an nt teachers, we are of the view that n t that has been paid in excess to th d be made.”(cid:1) v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 33 ined the validity of an order passed b e monetary gains wrongly extended t yees in excess of their entitlement isrepresentation at the behest of th C 334 ssed by nded to lements of the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9768-2004 2004(O&M) - 5- recipient. This Court consider to an employee, if recovery employer and disallowed the employees from such recovery “8. As between two parties, i favour of the party, which is any serious detriment to the State), the issue resolved wo concept of justice, which is even in the Preamble of the C recover being pursued by t compared, with the effect of concerned. If the effect of t concerned would be, more improper, and more unwarran of the employer to recover iniquitous and arbitrary, to situation, the employee's right eclipse, the right of the employ Xxxxxxxxx(cid:1) 18. It is not possible to pos which would govern employ where payments have mistake in excess of their entitlement. decisions referred to hereinabo summarise the following few the employers, would be impe (i) Recovery from the emplo Class IV service (or Group C a (ii) Recovery from the retire who are due to retire within on (iii) Recovery from the emplo has been made for a period in order of recovery is issued.(cid:1) (iv) Recovery in cases where a required to discharge duties of accordingly, even though h required to work against an inf (v) In any other case, where th that recovery if made from th or harsh or arbitrary to such a the equitable balance of the em (cid:1) caused rse the eficiary nsidered situations of hardship cause covery is directed to reimburse th d the same, exempting the beneficiar covery. It was held thus: ered in rties, if a determination is rendered i without ich is the weaker of the two, withou welfare to the other (which is truly a welfar ith the ed would be in consonance with th ch is assured to the citizens of India f India, right to f the Constitution of India. The right t to be by the employer, will have to ployee fect of the recovery on the employe ployee t of the recovery from the employe , more more unfair, more wrongful, mor ng right arranted, than the corresponding righ uld be over the amount, then it would b such a y, to effect the recovery. In such erefore 's right would outbalance, and therefor employer to recover.(cid:1) ardship to postulate all situations of hardshi employees on the issue of recovery covery, ployer, istakenly been made by the employe on the ement. Be that as it may, based on th erence, einabove, we may, as a ready referenc eries by g few situations, wherein recoveries b impermissible in law:(cid:1) employees belonging to Class III an up C and Group D service).(cid:1) ployees retired employees, or the employee overy.(cid:1) thin one year, of the order of recovery. ayment employees, when the excess paymen fore the riod in excess of five years, before th III and lly been en paid y been here an employee has wrongfully bee ties of a higher post, and has been pai ugh he should have rightfully bee t an inferior post.(cid:1) here the court arrives at the conclusion clusion, iquitous rom the employee, would be iniquitou utweigh such an extent, as would far outweig the employer's right to recover.”(cid:1) 3. In the case at hand, there is nothing i In th at the thing in the written statement that the petitioners receive received the amount by making any m lment any misrepresentation or concealment of facts. 4. ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Desp espite best efforts the learned Sta ed State counsel has not been able t able to CWP-9768-2004 2004(O&M) - 6- dispute the fact factual position and draw out out any distinctive aspects in th in the aforementioned ju oned judgment or cite any contrary law ry law. 5. In view of the afore, the present pet In vi ent petition is partly allowed insofar a sofar as recovery ordered dered is concerned. (AM (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 22.04.2025 ashok Whether sp Whether re ther speaking/reasoned ther reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN MAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Ms. A Ms. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate for t for the petitioners. Mr. S r. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punj , Punjab. AMAN CHAUD AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Prayer made in the present petition Pray tition for directing the respondents no ents not to make recovery overy of the amount paid under Notif otification issued by the Departmen artment of Finance dated 1 dated 19.05.1998. 2. Learned counsel submits that the pe Lear the petitioners who were appointed a inted as Senior Laborato boratory Attendants in pay-scale o cale of Rs.950-1800 (initial pay o pay of Rs.1000/-) were were held by the Local Audit not to to be entitled to the initial start start of Rs.1000/- and thu nd thus, it was ordered to be recovered overed. Reliance in the present petitio petition was placed on ju on judgment in the case Sahib Ram Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995(1 1995(1) SCT 668. This issue is recently dealt with by by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i ourt in Jogeshwar Saho Sahoo and others vs. The District J trict Judge, Cuttack and others, SL , SLP (C) No(s). 5918 5918-2024, decided on 04.04.2025, w 025, wherein it has been held that th that the recovery of exces f excess emoluments or allowances, d ces, disbursed as a consequence of a e of an erroneous compu computation of the same, ought not t not to be affected, such indulgenc ulgence ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9768-2004 2004(O&M) - 2- being granted as as an equitable relief, extended so ed solely to alleviate the hardship tha hip that might otherwise rwise be caused by such recovery, very, especially to those retired, th the relevant paras wh ras whereof read thus:- ality of to the whether were in without