Recovery of excess payments from employees must consider the impact on individuals, particularly retirees, and may be deemed iniquitous if it leads to hardship.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following prayers:–

(i) the impugned recovery order dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent no. 2 may kindly be quashed and set-side.

(ii) and respondents may further be directed to release the entire post retiral benefits alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner;

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. The controversy involved in the present case has already been meticulously dealt with by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2014, rendered in Civil Appeal No. 11527/2014 State of Punjab and Others Etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) Etc. For ready reference, the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:–

“1. Leave granted.

2. All the private respondents in the present bunch of cases, were given monetary benefits, which were in excess of their entitlement. These benefits flowed to them, consequent upon a mistake committed by the concerned competent authority, in determining the emoluments payable to them. The mistake could have occurred on account of a variety of reasons; including the grant of a status, which the concerned employee was not entitled to; or payment of salary in a higher scale, than in consonance of the right of the concerned employee; or because of a wrongful fixation of salary of the employee, consequent upon the upward revision of payscales; or for having been granted allowances, for which the concerned employee was not authorized. The long and short of the matter is, that all the private respondents were beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the employer, and on account of the said unintentional mistake, employees were in receipt of monetary benefits, beyond their due.

3. Another essential factual component in this bunch of cases is, that the respondent-employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information, which had led the concerned competent authority, to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The payment of higher dues to the private respondents, in all these cases, was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them. Any participation of the private respondents, in the mistake committed by the employer, in extending the undeserved monetary benefits to the respondent-employees, is totally ruled out. It would therefore not be incorrect to record, that the private respondents, were as innocent as their employers, in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments.

4. The issue that we have been required to adjudicate is, whether all the private respondents, against whom an order of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to the employer. For the applicability of the instant order, and the conclusions recorded by us hereinafter, the ingredients depicted in the foregoing two paragraphs are essentially indispensable.

5. Merely on account of the fact, that the release of these monetary benefits was based on a mistaken belief at the hands of the employer, and further, because the employees had no role in the determination of the employer, could it be legally feasible, for the private respondents to assert, that they should be exempted from refunding the excess amount received by them? Insofar as the above issue is concerned, it is necessary to keep in mind, that the following reference was made by a Division Bench of two Judges of this Court, for consideration by a larger Bench:

"In view of an apparent difference of views expressed on the one hand in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Verma vs.