IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

762 CWP-13102-2004 (O & M)

Date of decision: 30.04.2025 Joginder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CWP-15626-2004 (O & M)

Harbans Kumari and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-13102-2004.

Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-15626-2004.

Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together by this common judgment, for the sake of convenience the facts are derived from CWP-13102-2004.

2. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 11.03.2004, whereby recovery of special allowance granted to the petitioners was ordered.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were granted the special allowance, based on the notification dated 17.02.1989 and 20.07.1998. However, the said benefit was sought to be recovered, which the Division Bench vide order dated 26.08.2004 had stayed while issuing notice of motion, which was ordered to be continue till further orders. He, on instructions from the petitioners, restricts his prayer to only recovery ordered by relying on the policy/instructions dated 20.01.2017 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jogeshwar Sahoo and others vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and others, SLP (C) No(s). 5918-2024, decided on 04.04.2025, wherein it has been held that the recovery of excess emoluments or allowances, disbursed as a consequence of an erroneous computation of the same, ought not to be affected, such indulgence being granted as an equitable relief, extended solely to alleviate the hardship that might otherwise be caused by such recovery, especially to those retired, the relevant paras whereof read thus:-

“7. The issue falling for our consideration is not about the legality of the retrospective promotion and the financial benefit granted to the appellants on 10.05.2017. The issue for consideration is whether recovery of the amount extended to the appellants while they were in service is justified after their retirement and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing.

8. The law in this regard has been settled by this Court in catena of judgments rendered time and again; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416 and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139 and in a recent decision in the matter of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2022) SCC online SC 536.

9. This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part 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 payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. It is held that such relief against the recovery is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.

10. In Thomas Daniel (supra), this Court has held thus in paras 10, 11, 12 and 13:

“10. In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, this Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus:

“5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the