Date of Decis Singh Sarup Singh SUS v. Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others itioner
Case Details
CWP-10832 832-2021 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 208 CWP-10832 0832-2021 f Decision: December 23, 2025 Date of Decis Singh Sarup Singh 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. H.P.S Ghuman, Advocate fo for the petitioner. None 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 dated quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 (A 021 (Annexure P-11) and the amount ion of mount recovered from the pension of the petitioner itioner may be ordered to be refunded urther funded with 12% interest p.a. Further praying for g for staying the operation of order order dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure exure P-11). 2.
Legal Reasoning
This Court in a catena of decision “9. Th the e misrep payme for ca interpr errone not re becaus discret will be that if that th paid, o time o discret particu 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 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 at if cisions has consistently held that if ot paid on account of any any cess the employee or if such excess ciple yer by applying a wrong principle ce or on the basis of a particular ular be ich is subsequently found to be of emoluments or allowances are are ainst the recovery is granted not not icial ees but in equity, exercising judicial employees from the hardship that that held rdered. This Court has further 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. In that vein, this Court is of that is of the considered opinion that plied) (Emphasis supplied) 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 ll, the 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, ension be preceded by due notice, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10832 832-2021 5 consultation, tation, and empathetic handling cons of the g consistent with the dignity of the retired emplo employee. 8.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner wa was appointed on the post of Ass .1996 of Assistant Lineman on 12.06.1996 and retired tired from the service as Lineman the man on 31.01.2018 after serving the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10832 832-2021 2 respondent- -Corporation for more than two de n pay decades. The revised pension pay order was iss as issued on 20.02.2018 (Annexure on exure P-2). To the utter surprise on 30.03.2021, a , as the order of recovery was is xcess was issued on the ground that excess payment has nt has been paid to the petitioner. It i in the er. It is further contended that in the order impugn mpugned it has been duly recorded th s been ded that the excess payment has been made due to due to mistake of the dealing clerk. D ugned lerk. Due to the aforesaid impugned order (Annex Annexure P-11) certain amount was de Court was deducted but however, this Court vide order d rder dated 29.06.2021 had stayed t ounsel ayed the recovery. Learned counsel further subm submits that there was no a no allegation of any d or fraud or misrepresenta resentation on the part of the petiti ment. petitioner for the excess payment. Learned coun d counsel further submits that the pres red by e present case is squarely covered by the judgemen gement rendered by the Hon’ble Supr tate le Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. b v. Rafiq Masih 2015(1) SCT 195 overy 195 and that the impugned recovery is in direct vi rect violation of the principles laid do Court. aid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Reliance is a ce is also placed on the judgements of urt in ents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Pras Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 2024 and 2024 AIR Supreme Court 3950 and Thomas Dan Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC SCC OnLine SC 536. 3. There is no representation on be n the on behalf of the respondents. On the last two occ o occasions also, there was no re f the no representation on behalf of the respondents dents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for erused sel for the petitioner and have perused the case file e file with his able assistance. It trans retired It transpires that the petitioner retired from the se the service of the respondent-Cor , and Corporation on 31.01.2018, and thereafter a r ter a recovery order dated 30.03.2021 ssued, 3.2021 (Annexure P-11) was issued, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10832 832-2021 3 despite there there being no misrepresentation or fr tioner n or fraud on the part of the petitioner in obtaining t ining the alleged excess payment. 5. The question regarding, recover s well ecovering of excess payment is well settled by th by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of case urt of India in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) and t and the relevant extract reads as unde s under:- 12. “… “….It is not possible to postulate a hich ate all situations of hardship, which would uld govern employees on the issue ents issue of recovery, where payments have m ve mistakenly been made by the their the employer, in excess of their entitlem titlement. Be that as it may, based to based on the decisions referred to herein rein above, we may, as a ready refe ing reference, summarise the following few si w situations, wherein recoveries be ies by the employers, would be imperm permissible in law: (i) Recovery from employee and loyees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' a 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired em are d employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of r, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees has yees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in exces rder xcess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where fully here an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge du as e duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even th fully n though he should have rightfully been required to work against a st an inferior post. (v) In any other case, whe the where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if mad d be made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary far rary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balanc t to lance of the employer's right to recover. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10832 832-2021 4 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 presen order present petition is allowed and order of recovery d ry dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P in ure P-11) is quashed and set aside in terms of Rafi Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). The r hority The respondents/competent authority is further dire er directed to refund the already recov terest recovered amount along with interest @ 6% calcul calculated from the date of recovery ithin a very till its actual realization within a period of thre of three months on receiving the certif certified copy of this order. 9. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands ed of. disposed of. December 23 P.C 23, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document