Bansi Lal vs State of Punjab and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure-P-3) whereby the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed at lower stage with effect from 15.4.1988 and a recovery of Rs. 61,189/- has been ordered to be made from the retrial benefits. When the case came up for hearing on 3.12.2012, counsel for the petitioner had restricted the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition with regard to the recovery of the financial benefits, which have been granted to the petitioner while he was in service, from the retrial benefits.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed in Court, the same is taken on record and copy supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.

The ground taken by the respondents for recovering the amount from the petitioner is that the petitioner has wrongly been granted pay fixation, which has been duly rectified by the respondents and, therefore, excess amount, which has been given to the petitioner, has been ordered to be recovered, which is in accordance with law. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, titled as Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on 17.8.2012 to contend that the excess payment of public money, which has been received by the petitioner, can be recovered at any time.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

It has not been disputed by the respondents in their reply, which has been filed by them in Court today that the excess payment, which has been made to the petitioner while in service was because of wrong fixation of his pay, in which the petitioner neither misrepresented nor misstated or committed a fraud upon the respondents. Infact, it is by mistake that the said benefit was released to the petitioner on the basis of wrong interpretation of the Rules/instructions by the officials, who had fixed the pay of the petitioner. The benefit, which has been released to the petitioner and the same has been sought to be recovered, cannot be so done in the light of the observations made in the judgment in Chandi Parsad Uniyal''s case (supra), wherein again an exception has been carved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court relying upon the earlier judgments of the said Court that such benefits released to the employees during the service cannot be recovered from the retrial benefits. In view of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the present writ petition with regard to the claim as has been made by the petitioner with restriction with regard to the recovery from the financial benefits, deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The recovered amount of Rs. 61,189/- from the retrial benefits of the petitioner is directed to be released to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.