##PAGE1##

1

CWP-9195-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

217 CWP-9195-2019

Date of Decision: March 05, 2026

Naresh Kumar

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. TVS Lehal, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2018 passed by respondent

No.3 (Annexure P-1) withdrawing the time bound scale of 9/16 earlier

granted to the petitioner and the gratuity pay order dated 29.11.2018

whereby recovery of Rs.5,84,448/- has been made from the petitioner’s

gratuity, illegally and arbitrarily by the respondents. Further praying for

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to

refund the amount already deducted as recovery from the pensionary/retiral

1 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:07:07 :::

##PAGE2##

2

CWP-9195-2019

benefits of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum from the due

date of entitlement till actual payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the

order dated 23.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) was passed by respondent No.3

whereby the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 9/16 years of

service, which had been granted to the petitioner in the years 2004 and 2010

in the cadre of LDC, was withdrawn. Learned counsel further submits that

the said benefit has been withdrawn on the eve of the petitioner’s retirement

without affording him any opportunity of hearing, which is in clear violation

of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that pursuant to the

refixation of pay, an amount of Rs.5,84,448/- has been recovered from the

gratuity of the petitioner, as reflected in Annexure P-2, which is not

sustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that, firstly, recovery after

retirement is impermissible and, secondly, recovery of excess payment

beyond a period of five years is also not permissible in view of the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih

2015(1) SCT 195 and that the impugned recovery is in direct violation of the

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Reliance is also placed on

the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh v.

State of Bihar 2024 AIR Supreme Court 3950 and Thomas Daniel v. State

of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536

2 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:07:07 :::

##PAGE3##

3

CWP-9195-2019

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner,

in his pension form, had furnished an undertaking that in the event any

excess amount is paid to him, he would be bound to refund the same, as is

evident from Annexure R-3. However, learned counsel is unable to

controvert the settled legal position that recovery of excess payment from an

employee is impermissible, particularly when such payment was not the

result of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. Learned

counsel also could not dispute the applicability of the judgments cited

hereinabove by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the said

proposition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal

of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner retired

from the service of the respondent-Corporation on 30.09.2018 upon

attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed

order dated 23.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) whereby the time-bound pay scale

benefits granted to the petitioner on completion of 9/16 years of service

were withdrawn. Consequent thereto, a recovery of Rs.5,84,448/- was

ordered to be effected from the gratuity payable to the petitioner, as reflected

in the gratuity payment order dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure P-2).

5. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by Full

Bench of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document