RSA No. 1415 of 2019 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(246)

RSA No. 1415 of 2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 30.01.2023

State of Punjab and others

...Appellants

Versus

Lekha Rani

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

for the appellants.

Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advocate and

Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate for the respondent.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

The present regular second appeal has been filed impugning the

judgment of the lower appellate court dated 15.11.2018 by which, the

judgment dated 29.11.2014 passed by the trial court dismissing the suit

filed by the respondent-plaintiff was set-aside.

Certain facts need to be mentioned here so as to appreciate the

controversy in the correct perspective.

While implementing the recommendation of the Pay

Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the pay of the respondent-plaintiff was also

fixed by the department without there being any input from the respondent-

plaintiff. In the year 2011, it was found by the department that the pay of

the respondent-plaintiff was wrongly fixed, which was sought to be

corrected. Vide order dated 29.01.2011, the mistake, which occurred while

fixing the salary of the respondent-plaintiff w.e.f. 01.01.1996, was corrected

KANCHAN

2023.02.06 16:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

RSA No. 1415 of 2019 (O&M)

2

and the excess amount paid to the respondent-plaintiff was sought to be

recovered in instalments.

Against the said order of recovery, the respondent-plaintiff

filed an appeal, which appeal came to be decided on 19.07.2011 and by

holding that as there was no misrepresentation on behalf of the respondent-

plaintiff, the recovery sought to be made from the respondent-plaintiff was

withdrawn. Thereafter, without giving any opportunity, the order dated

19.07.2011 was re-considered and modified vide order dated 05.02.2013

and it was directed that the recovery of the excess amount be done from the

respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff challenged the said order

dated 05.02.2013 by which, the recovery of the excess amount was sought

to be done from her.

Notice was issued and the appellants-defendants filed a reply,

wherein, they stated that the pay of the respondent-plaintiff was wrongly

fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and as the said mistake came to their notice in the

year 2011, after giving due opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff, the pay

₹

was re-fixed and the excess amount of 93,497/- was sought to be

recovered. As per the appellants-defendants, the order passed by the

appellate authority for not effecting the recovery dated 19.07.2011 was

rightly withdrawn by the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 as the

respondent-plaintiff had been paid the money beyond her entitlement, which

needs to be recovered being public money.

Keeping in view the evidence, which came on record, the suit

filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide order

dated 29.11.2014 against which, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal

before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court vide order dated

KANCHAN

2023.02.06 16:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

RSA No. 1415 of 2019 (O&M)

3

15.11.2018 allowed the said appeal filed by the respondent-plaintff holding

that once there was no misrepresentation on the part of the employee

concerned, no recovery of the excess amount paid was permissible keeping

in view the settled principle of law and the instructions being relied by the

department dated 05.10.2012, cannot be made applicable, especially, with

retrospective effect. The recovery of the excess amount sought to be done

vide order dated 05.02.2013 from the respondent-plaintiff was set-aside.

In the present appeal, the State is impugning the judgment

passed by the lower appellate court dated 15.11.2018.

Learn