IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

255 CWP-4949-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Bala Devi ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Nihar Bala, Advocate for Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

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 demand notice-cum-recovery order dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) whereby an amount of Rs.3,16,694/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner on account of excess payment of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 14.08.2022 onwards. Further prayer has been made to stay the operation of the impugned demand notice-cum-recovery order dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) vide which recovery of Rs.4,353/- per month (monthly installment) has been ordered. Another prayer has been made to refund the already recovered amount (from November, 2022) with interest @

18% p.a. deducted from the account of the petitioner.

2. The short controversy involved in the present case is with regard to the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner on account of alleged excess payment of family pension for the period from 01.01.2016 to 14.08.2022, as per the impugned demand notice-cum- recovery order dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-2), whereby a sum of Rs.3,16,694/- has been directed to be recovered, and monthly deductions of Rs.4,353/- have been initiated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The impugned recovery order is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014, titled as State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih. The petitioner, being the widow of an Assistant Lineman who died in service in 2002, was granted family pension in accordance with applicable rules, and had no role in fixation of pension. Thus, she cannot be penalised for any excess payment arising out of administrative errors.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that monthly recovery of Rs.4,353/- was started from November 2022, and despite no fault on the part of the petitioner, total amount of Rs.3,16,694/- has already been recovered. The recovery was later stayed by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2023.

5. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) and by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.24646 of 2017 titled as Rama Rani vs Union of India and others, decided on 09.05.2022 wherein recovery from similarly situated family pensioners was held to be impermissible.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent/Nigam was justified in ordering the recovery, asserting that the excess pension payment was made to the petitioner by the concerned authorities, and hence, the recovery is valid in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs Jagdev Singh, 2016(4) SCT 286 and the judgment of this Court in CWP-25821-2016 titled as Bal Krishan Sharma vs State of Haryana, decided on 07.07.2022

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent(s) and gone through the case file with their able assistance.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a family pensioner and no material has been brought on record by the respondent/Nigam to show that any fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the petitioner while receiving the pension. On the contrary, the explanation furnished is that excess pension payment was made to the petitioner, which is an administrative lapse. In that eve