Recovery of excess payments is permissible when based on rectification of prior errors not aligning with statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR,  J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India , is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) vide which the respondents have ordered recovery of alleged excess payment on account of increments granted to the petitioner for the period of Extra-Ordinary leave (EOL) from 08.11.2007 to 20.12.2012 (on the basis of agenda item No.367.38 dated 27.08.2025( (Annexure P-2). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents not to effect any recovery or interfere with the petitioner’s settled pay fixation along with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the impugned order of recovery was passed on 24.10.2025 (Annexure P-) after a gap of 11 years. The petitioner was granted Extra-Ordinary Leave from 08.11.2007 to 20.12.2012 under the applicable policy of 2007. In terms of the policy, the petitioner has deposited 10% of his salary during the leave period. In the year 2014, based upon the legal opinion and relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP- 6852-2021, titled as Suresh Kumar Chillar vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, decided on 19.01.2024, the respondent/Nigam counted the leave period of the petitioner towards service continuity and granted notional increments. The benefit, which was granted in the year 2014, was disturbed after a period of 11 years solely on the basis of an opinion rendered by the Finance Department. The respondent/Nigam issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and subsequently passed the impugned recovery order. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334 and submits that any recovery of the excess payment after a period of 05 years is not permissible and the impugned action of the respondent/Nigam is also contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in Suresh Kumar Chillar’s case (supra), in which this Court has set-aside the impugned order of recovery passed in similar fashion and the case of the petitioner is identical to the aforementioned Suresh Kumar Chillar’s case (supra)

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that Extra-Ordinary Leave was granted on the request of the petitioner and for counting the leave period as service continuity is neither contemplated under the Policy of 2007 nor permissible under the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part I. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 further submits that the increments and consequential benefits were erroneously granted to the petitioner, and upon detection of the error, the respondent/Nigam was well within its right to rectify the mistake, ordered recovery of the excess amount paid. He further contends that Rules are very explicit that such benefit can only be granted to the employees who have been given Extra-Ordinary Leave on medical grounds. Further the increment, in question, was not granted by the department rather the entire exercise was done on the request made by the petitioner and only, thereafter, his request was processed, which was wrongly granted de hors the mandate of the applicable service rules. Further reliance of the petitioner on Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) is totally misplaced and the case of the petitioner is distinguished even from Suresh Kumar Chillar’s case (supra) as this Court in Para 12 o the said judgment has declared the recovery of the excess paym