Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.
Tara Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 25670 of 2014
Decided On : 19-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.K. Dogra.
For the Respondent: Ms. Sunint Kaur.
Recovery of excess amount from a retired employee or an employee nearing retirement is impermissible in law, as established by the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (1) SCT 195.
Headnote:
Recovery - Retired Employee - 2015 (1) SCT 195 - The court discussed the recovery of excess amount from a retired employee and cited the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (1) SCT 195. The court held that recovery cannot be effected from a retired employee or an employee nearing retirement. The court also referenced other cases where recovery of excess amount was set aside for similarly situated employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged the recovery of an excess amount from his retiral benefits after the withdrawal of his pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery from the petitioner was contrary to the settled principles of law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (1) SCT 195. The court also noted that recovery for similarly situated employees had already been set aside by previous court orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether recovery of an excess amount after withdrawing the benefit could be done from a retired employee's retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (1) SCT 195, and previous court orders setting aside recovery for similarly situated employees to decide that the recovery from the petitioner was contrary to the established legal principles.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order for recovery and directed the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
JUDGMENT :
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.
1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the action of the respondents in recovering an amount of Rs. 1,46,370/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure P-2).
2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner was appointed as a Carpenter under respondent No. 3 at the RSD Shahpur Kandi Township, Pathankot. The Government of Punjab revised the payscale of its employees in the year 1988 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and upon the said revision, petitioner was granted the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100. The said pay-scale was extended to the petitioner and he was re-designated as a Technician Grade-III keeping in view the pay-scale, which he was granted w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In the subsequent revision also, the revision commensurate to the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100, was extended to the petitioner.
3. In the year 2002, to be precise on 11.09.2002, respondents passed an order by which the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was withdrawn from the petitioner on the ground that the same was wrongly extended to him and other similarly situated persons. The said action of the withdrawal of the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was challenged before this Court in CWP No. 1067 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 27.03.2009, wherein, the action of the respondents in withdrawing the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was upheld. With regard to the recovery of the excess amount, which the petitioner and other similarly situated employees had withdrawn, was left to be decided by the respondents at their own level keeping in view the financial burden and the hardship, which was to be faced by the employees. The action of withdrawal of the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appeal preferred. After the action of the respondent-department of withdrawing the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondents decided to effect the recovery of excess amount from the petitioner as well as the similarly situated employees. Before any recovery could be done from the petitioner, he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2009. After the petitioner superannuated, the respondents passed an order dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure P-2) for the recovery of Rs. 1,46,370/-. Similar orders were also passed in the case of other colleagues of petitioner, from whom also the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was withdrawn. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of the recovery on the ground that recovery cannot be done from a retired employee and further, there was no misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner to secure the said pay-scale and as the decision to withdraw the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was of the respondents themselves, the excess amount, which has been paid to the petitioner, cannot be recovered.
4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply.
5. In the reply, the respondents have stated that once their action of withdrawing the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2100 has been upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner cannot be allowed to retain the excess amount as the same is public money and excess amount paid under a mistaken belief can be recovered from the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. The question, which arises for the determination of this Court in the present writ petition is, whether a recovery of an excess amount after withdrawing the benefit can be done from a retired employee or not from his retiral benefits.
8. This question has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (1) SCT 195, wherein, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the guidelines as to under what circumstances, recovery cannot be done from the employees. The relevant part of the said judgment is as un
