IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

285 CWP-8506-2024 Reserved on: 04.03.2025 Pronounced on: 20.03.2025 Roop Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present:- Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gurvinder Pal singh, Advocate for Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondent no3.

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the letters dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby, an amount of Rs.1,05,042/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.

A perusal of the facts of the case would show that the petitioner was appointed on 01.06.1976 on regular basis in respondent no.3-the Municipal Council, Mullanpur Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana. On attaining the age of superannuation, i.e 60 years being group-D employee, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2016. After 7 years of his retirement, respondent no.3, has issued a letter dated 6.3.2024 (Annexure P-1), wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been overpaid an amount of Rs.1,05,042/- while releasing arrears of gratuity and leave encashment after retirement. A perusal of the above said letter would also show that the demand of refund of overpaid amount is based on the basis of an affidavit given by the petitioner at the time of retirement to the effect that if excess amount is paid to the petitioner, in that case, the petitioner will return the same to the respondent-

Council.

The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.3.2024 in reference to the above said letter dated 6.3.2024 (Annexure P-1). In the representation, the petitioner had stated that as the petitioner had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation, as such, no excess amount could be recovered from the petitioner. The respondent-Council again issued another letter dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-4) addressed to the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner was told to immediately deposit the excess amount. It was further stated in the above said letter that in case, the petitioner does not deposit the recovery amount, further action will be taken against the petitioner.

Aggrieved against the above said letters dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute with regard to the excess amount being paid to the petitioner while releasing the arrears of gratuity and leave encashment. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had given an affidavit dated 19.4.2017 (Annexure R-3/1) to the effect that in the event any excess amount is paid inadvertently, the same will be refunded to the respondent-Council. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that excess amount was not paid to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation, concealment or fraud, on the part of the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that before the issuance of the aforesaid letters, no notice was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 2015(1) SCT 195 and on the basis of the above said judgement, as per the petitioner, there cannot be any recovery of the excess amount paid after retirement. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3, on the other hand submits that the judgement relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) would not be applicable in the present case for the reason that the petitioner has already given an affidavit dated 19.4.2017 Annexure R-3/1, wherein it has been stated that if any excess amount is paid to the petitioner, he is bound to return the same to the respondent-Council. Reliance ha