Rawail Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors

IN

CWP-5783-20 Rawail Singh v

CWP-201-200 Usha Kapila an

CWP-3354-20 Ram Singh vs.

CWP-3966-20 Rajinder Kaur

CWP-9591-20 Smt. Surjit An CORAM: H

Present: M

M

fo

M

** AMAN CHAU

1.

T disposed of tog

2.

C of pay fixation by the Divisio

08.01.2004 in

3.

L working on C effected in wa N THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGA Date o

002 (O&M) vs. State of Punjab and others 04 (O&M) nd others vs. State of Punjab and 008 (O&M) . State of Punjab and others 006 (O&M) vs. State of Punjab and others 005 (O&M) nand vs. State of Punjab and othe ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA ***** Mr. RK Arora, Advocate and Mr. Inayat Khullar, Advocate or the petitioners. Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG **** UDHARY, J. (Oral) hese cases involve similar is gether. Challenge in the present petitions n was withdrawn and recovery on Bench vide orders dated 2 CWP-201-2004, 15.06.2005 in C earned counsel, on instructions Class-III posts, restricts their pra ake of fact that there was neit

UNJAB & HARYANA ARH of decision: 23.01.2025 d others ers AN CHAUDHARY G, Punjab. sues and therefore, are being s is to the order whereby benefit was ordered, which was stayed

27.05.2003 in CWP-5783-2002, CWP-9591-2005. from the petitioners, who were ayer to only recovery to be not ther any mis-representation nor

g t d , e t r

fraud and in p Punjab, CWP been carried ou

4.

L

20.01.2017, w to Class-III an Kumar Singla on 20.09.2010 paras whereof pursuance of the judgment in R P-17005-1989, decided on 01.03 ut. Learned counsel relies on wherein it has been provided that nd Class-IV employee, may not b a vs. State of Punjab and Oth 0, SLP against which was dismis f read thus: "5. The following needs to case (supra), for considera petition : "It is in the light of longer open to the a no matter erroneous the employee concer in any way responsi by the authorities th benefit that has been the basis of any suc primarily because if for the erroneous g would induce in him indeed due and pay employee would, as position arrange his may not have done i being granted to him subsequent point of to be the correct in rules. Having induc and made him chang affairs in a manner th done, it would be un the Government to amount simply bec interpretation of the due. It does not requi additional monetary may not always r

Rewail Singh etc. vs. State of

3.1995 that the pay fixation had the policy/instructions dated recovery of excess amount paid be made as also held in Krishan hers, CWP-11341-2003, decided ssed on 05.12.2014, the relevant o be extracted from Budh Ram's ation of the issue raised in this f the above pronouncement. no authorities granting the benefits, sly, to contend that even when rned was not at fault and was not ible for the mistake committed hey are entitled to recover the n received by the employee on ch erroneous grant. We say so the employee is not responsible grant of benefit to him/her, it m the belief that the same was yable. Acting on that belief the any other person placed in his s affairs accordingly which he if he had known that the benefit m is likely to be withdrawn at any time on what may be then said nterpretation and application of ed that belief in the employee ge his position and arrange his hat he would not otherwise have nfair, inequitable and harsh for direct recovery of the excess cause on a true and correct e rules, such a benefit was not ire much imagination to say that benefits going to an employee esult in accumulation of his f d d d n d t s s o , n t d e n o e t s e s e t y d f e s e r s t t t e s

5.

A Daniel vs. Sta Haryana2 and Court held th impermissible

1 2022 SCC OnL 2 1995 Supp (1) S 3 (2015) 4 SCC 3 resources and saving utilized on smaller employee and his fam afford had the benefi employees can well them that the additi and would be recove not have committed expenditure in their d their coat accordin therefore, no hesitat employees who ar extended to them on application of any instructions have not erroneous interpreta any fraud, misreprese grant of such benefit stopped for the futur to the employees can

¶6In view of the above, thi Budh Ram & Others vs. St Writ Petition No.2799 of reported as 2009(3) PLR 5 that respondents would ha from the petitioner. In the period if any recovery has be refunded to the petitione of a certified copy of t respondents in regard re maintained." A gainful reference can be mad ate of Kerala1, wherein by rely d State of Punjab vs. Rafiq hat generally, the recovery of to be affected.

Line SC 536 SCC 18

gs. Such a benefit may often be r luxuries of life which the mily may not have been able to it not been extended to him. The argue that if it was known to ional benefit is only temporary ered back from them, they would d themselves to any additional daily affairs and would have cut ng to their cloth. We have, tion in holding that in case the re recipient of the benefits n an erroneous interpretation or rule, regulation, circular and t in any way contributed to such ation nor have they committed entation, deception to obtain the , the benefit so extended may be re, but the amount already paid nnot be recovered from them." is petition is allowed in terms of tate of Haryana & Others (Civil f 2008, decided on 22.5.2009)

¶511Accordingly, it is directed ave no right to effect recovery e meantime, in the interregnum been effected, the amount shall er within four months of receipt this order. The action of the efixation of pay, however, is de to the judgment in Thomas ing on Sahib Ram vs. State of Masih3, Hon'ble the Supreme f amounts paid in excess are e e o e o y d l t , e s r d h d e e d f l ) d y m l t e s s f e e

6.

L controvert the aforementione

7.

In terms of the ju

8.

Ph

23.01.2025 ashok

W

W earned State counsel despite b e factual position and draw out ed judgments or cite any contrary n view of the aforesaid, the pres udgment passed in Krishan Kum hotocopy of this order be placed

(A

best efforts has been unable to t any distinctive aspects in the y law. sent petitions are disposed of in mar Singla (supra). d on the connected files. AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE o e n