High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2354/2026allowed

Anil Kumar Aggarwal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And Another

2026-03-11Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar11 pages

!"#$%#&'('$)*

+++ * ,- .

/#(#)"*

! "#

! "# $

! "# $ & ++++

. 0 '

(

# ))*+)),$ $ -

$ $ .

$ ), /0 &45

)4 /4 )/)1 23 &')5

6 7 )&

!8 8" !!9

$ " 6+ +$ 6 ! " #

$ /'

)/'*:/ /* )/)'

; !

1!,,!:0*+& 6 ## $# /:

/< &,5 !

$')=

) # $ #

" & $ 6 )//< > "$ ! . 6

# !

$ - 6 # % " ! #" '< /0 )/)< )'

'/ )/)<

&$3 $ ( 6 "

'0 ''

&156 ?&:/*,,&)/)< # $ 9" $

# '0 /) )/)1 23 &*5 #

$ 6+ +$ 6 !

,1&016

$ /'

)/'* :/ /* )/)'! ') . 6 !

## $ $ !)/)1 ( #

6 " # :+)/)123 &,5 # 6 )//< ,46

$$# :+)/)123 &,5 :

% $

'* /* )/)1 .

$ $ $" $6

! # 23 &,5 % " ! $

), /0 )/)1 23 &45

#" 3#

1!4*!,10+& 6 !

1!,,!:0*+& ( 6

$ # !

7 )

)4 /4 &')5

6 #" 3#

1!4*!'10+& $

$3 $

" 6 23 &4

&')5! $ >&1)14&)/)1

6$ $

), ''

&':5 ( $ !>&*:)4&)/)1

" @

6 " !"

)< ') )/)1 < # #

'0 ''

)/)1 23 &15

23 &' &:5$ &$3 $ 6+ $ #!

# #" 6

$$# $ @

6 6 #"

( $ !

# # 6 #"

1!4*!'10+&

$3 $ 6 )//<!$ $

! 6 6 $ $ # 23 &,5 (

6 #6 2

1!4*!'10+&5

1!,,!:0*+&

# ! # 6 # &$3 " 23

&' &:5 6 #

6 %A State of Punjab vs.

CWP-2354-2026 (O&M) -4Rafiq Masih 2015(1) SCT 195. ( $6#" # 23 &,5 $

1!,,!:0*+&

% " !

( !

6 ;B# $

!"! # $

# $)//*

)0!,1/+&

)1!<1/+&

( $ !

6 # #

$ # $)/'* ""

,/!<):+&

*)!:</+& ?

# ! & " C6!)/)< #" 6 $

''!,1!,/<+&

- $ /'

)//*:/ /* )/)< (

$ " #" 6" 3 &'!

# #

!% " ! $ # #" $

)!4'!:):+&

?&:/*,,&)/)<!

# $ $

# #

# $ # # 6 Rafiq Masih (supra) is misfounded as it only protects one from coercive recovery but does not create a positive right to retain erroneous payment. 6.

He further submits that the petitioner had demanded arrears from 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2021 in terms of circular (Annexure P-7). In response, impugned memos (Annexures P-9 and P-12) were issued, informing the

CWP-2354-2026 (O&M) -5petitioner that he has already drawn an excess payment of Rs.5,96,158/- because of erroneous calculation for the said time period. If arrears were calculated on correct basic pension, it would have been Rs.5,77,386/-, as such, he is already in receipt of more than the amount lawfully due. The benefits under the circular (Annexure P-7) are not a separate monetary benefit but only represent revision of pension. Since the petitioner has already received enhanced pension for the said period, releasing the same amount against would equate to double payment. Essentially, the change has only been made in nomenclature-from "excess pension" to "arrears." Releasing Rs.5,77,386/- would result in unjust enrichment which is neither permissible in law, nor contemplated under the circular (Annexure P-7). . 1 .-..

, % "

# $ $

$ # ! $ "# :'

)//<!

"# #

% " ! #

?&:/*,,& )/)<! 6+ $

#6$3

# 6 " 6

6 $ # !

'< /0 )/)< )'

'/ )/)<23 &' &:5

$ #" 6 ##$ # # 6 &

% " !"

'0 ''

&15! $

$ $

"# $% # $ % &

!!!

( " ) !

* +

" +

# $ ' &

" --../ 0.1(212.34 !

50&

-(1.0 2001212.34 !

56& 5 "

7 89

$ " -

" 6 6 #" 3#

# 6 )//<! $ " -

# $6

% " ! #

- 6

!# 6$

# !

2 6 " 6

$ # .

$# 23 &,5

- $3 #

6 - # 3#

$ # 23 &,5 ( # 6$ # " 6 $ 6

#" . #" 6$

$ " $ # .#

$ ( #" 6$ 3#

#$# 6 # "

'0 ''

&15

" 6

$# 23 &,5

# #6!# #6 " ! $ $&" ! &

6 $ $

23 &4 &')5! ## "$

# ?&:/*,,&)/)< ( $ ! #

$ 6 # # .# $ "

10.

Further, a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009 dealt with the issue of recovery of excess payment made to an mployee in extenso. It was held that while the same can be allowed in case of

CWP-2354-2026 (O&M) -8fraud or misrepresentation resulting in disbursement of more than the deserved amount, however, when there is no element of deception on part of the employee, it would be inequitable to effect recovery. Speaking through Justice T.S. Thakur, the following was held:

"Cases involving recovery of benefits received by the employees on account of misrepresentation or erroneous application of rules, regulations, circulars or instructions issued by the Government have often come up before the Courts including the Apex Court. The consistent view taken as regards the recovery of such benefits erroneously extended to the employees without the employee being, in any way, guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or deception is that such recovery would be unfair inequitable and against justice and good conscience. In Bihar State Electricity Board and another Vs.

Bijay Bahadur and another, 2000 (10) SCC 99, even when their Lordships recorded a finding that the employee did not possess the requisite qualification for the benefit granted to him and was not, therefore, entitled to any relaxation of the Rules held that it would be against the concept of fairness, equity, justice and good conscience to recover the amount received by him in consequence of the benefit granted to him.

Concurring with the observations made by their Lordships' in Sahib Ram's case (supra), the Court observed:- "We do record our concurrence with the observations of this Court in Sahib Ram case (supra) and come to the of conclusion that since payments have been made without any representation or a misrepresentation, the appellant Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct or recover the excess amount paid by way of increments at an earlier point of time. The act or acts on the part of the appellant Board cannot under any circumstances be said to be in consonance with equity, good conscience and justice. The concept of fairness has been given a go-by. As such the actions initiated for recovery cannot be sustained under any circumstances."

In Sahib Ram's case (supra), referred to earlier, also the employee did not possess the requisite qualification but had received the salary on revised scales. Their Lordships however, held that the benefit flowing to the employee was not on account of any misrepresentation but on account of legal construction made for which the employee cannot be found fault with.

CWP-2354-2026 (O&M) -9- "Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances, the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefitof higher pay-scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till the date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs."

(emphasis added) 11.

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 3 SCC 475, speaking through Justice B.N. Agrawal, opined as follows: "27. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.

The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668 : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, 1994(2) SCT 296 : [1994]2 SCC 521; Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, 1996(4) SCT 57 : [1996]4 SCC 416; V.

Ganga Ram v. Regional Jt.

CWP-2354-2026 (O&M) -1072 : [1997]6 SCC 139; Col. B.J. Akkara [Retd.] v. Government of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 709; Purshottam Lal Das & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2006(4) SCT 537 : [2006]11 SCC 492; Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Anr., 2006(4) SCT 570 : [2006]8 SCC 647 and Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur & Anr., [2000] 10 SCC 99."

(emphasis added) The ratio culled out in Syed Abdul Qadri(supra) has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra).

12.

In Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 (2) SCT 722, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that no recovery of the excess amount paid to an employee can be effected especially when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the employee concerned. Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was held: "9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable.

This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess."

CONCLUSION 13.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. (

), /0 &45 )4 /4 &')5

6 7 )&

6 ; ! +# 6 #

1!,,!:0*+& 6

## $ # /:

/< )/)1 23 &,5

(

$*=

!# $ !)/)1 # $

'< ( # $

1/!///+& ! 6 $ #

15.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

+ ?

- +

E +7 ?

E +7