Dhanpati v. State of Haryana and Others

CM-5797-CWP-2024 in/an2 CWP-72-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (109+269) CM-5797-CWP-2024 in/an2 CWP-72-2024 Date of Deci%ion : AA/i1 08, 2024 D9anAati   .. Petitione/ Ve/%4% State of Ha/yana an2 ot9e/%   .. Re%Aon2ent% CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Kishan Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

¶1In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs.7,38,300/- is being recovered from the family pension of the petitioner, which act on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the family pension was paid by the respondents themselves without there being any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ������������������� ���������.  ������������������������������������������� �!����"�� �no recovery of excess amount paid can be done from the class III and IV employee with regard to the incorrect pension paid and that too for more than five years.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even CM-5797-CWP-2024 in/an2 CWP-72-2024 2 otherwise, no show cause notice has ever been issued to the petitioner before recovering the amount in question, which act on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

¶4Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the husband of the petitioner was working with the respondents as an Assistant and he unfortunately died on 20.02.2003 thereafter, the claim of the petitioner for family pension was considered.  Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as  enhanced family pension was payable  to the petitioner, till the date the husband of the petitioner was to attain superannuation i.e. Rs.2701/- which amount was increased to Rs.6106/- keeping in view the revised  pay   scale  given   from  01.01.2006   but,  w.e.f.   22.02.2013,  the petitioner was to be given the normal family pension of Rs.3899/- but petitioner was paid enhanced family pension upto July 2023 i.e. for a period of 10 years, which  amount of family pension paid  was beyond her entitlement and the extra money paid was rightly been recovered keeping in view the undertaking given,   a copy of which has been appended as Annexure R-4/4.

¶5I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶6It  is  a  settled  principle  of  law that  in   case there  is   no misrepresentation to claim excess amount and the same was paid by the authorities concerned, excess amount paid cannot be recovered.   Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in �#�$�%&&��$�'��(���������������$������!��)���*����$�#�������������� +���$�������������������������������������The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- "(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently CM-5797-CWP-2024 in/an2 CWP-72-2024 3 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." %. "n the present case, the petitioner never misrepresented in order to get any claim +eyond her entitlement.  As per the reply filed +y the respondents also, it is clear that it #as the respondents #ho fi3ed family pension of the petitioner and continued to pay her the enhanced family pension #ithout there +eing any involvement of the petitioner.  "n case, #.e.f. ,,.(,.,(!&, the petitioner #as to +e paid normal family pension, the same #as the duty of the respondents and no act can +e attri+uted upon the petitioner for paying the more family  pension than the entitlement. '. As per the /udgment of the  onti+le 1upreme 2ourt of "ndia in �����������,����������&�����in case,�any e3cess amount is paid for a period of more than five years to an employee, no recovery of the e3cess amount can +e done from a retired employee especially #or.ing on a class """ and "4 post.  Admittedly, the hus+and of the petitioner #as #or.ing on a class CM-5797-CWP-2024 in/an2 CWP-72-2024 4 """ post and after his death, the petitioner #as granted the family pension. The relevant paragraph of the said /udgment in �����������-����������&��� is as under :* "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 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.;

¶8   <urther, the respondents have conceded that the enhanced family pension +eyond the entitlement of the petitioner #as paid for a period of !( years.   ence, the claim of the petitioner is s5uarely covered under para !, of the /udgment in �����������,����������&���� ��� At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents su+mits that there is an underta.ing given +y the petitioner that in case, any amount is CM-5797-CWP-2024 in/an2 CWP-72-2024 5 paid beyond entitlement, the same can be recovered hence, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in   �#�$�%&&��$�'�� .����������/����$������0�1�� ���������������2�0��3������������������� 4�1��#����1���������������"��(����/, the excess amount paid to the petitioner can be recovered.

¶11A bare perusal of the undertaking would show that there is no date on the same as to when the said undertaking was  given by the petitioner.  In the absence of any date on the undertaking coupled with the fact that the same is filled in  a cyclostyed performa, the said undertaking cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Further, nothing has come on record that the said undertaking was given, at the time of getting the family pension or at the time when the recovery was ordered to be done hence, the said undertaking cannot come to rescue of the respondents so as to deny the claim of the petitioner.

¶12Keeping in view the above, the recovery of the excess amount which is being done from the petitioner is held to be arbitrary or illegal and contrary to the settled principle of law and the same is set aside.   Any amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order.

¶13It may be noticed that the entitlement of the petitioner for pension @ Rs.3899/- prospectively is upheld and only the recovery of the excess amount is being set aside.

¶14The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. AA/i1 08,2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) harsha ������JUDGE