Jagjit Singh v. M.C.,B.A.M.Khalsa College
CWP-18369-2002 (O&M) - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18369-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.02.2025 Jagjit Singh Chahal ....Petitioner
Versus
Managing Committee, B.A.M. Khalsa College and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG Punjab Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4 ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.
The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order, vide which the pay scale given to the petitioner, has been withdrawn without affording any opportunity under the garb of rectification of wrong fixation and recovery ordered, which the Division Bench vide order dated 21.11.2002 had stayed. 2.
The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physical Education and was granted the pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 with the benefit of placement in the Grade of Rs.14940/- at par with the lecturers in other disciplines, after the approval of the Director Public Instruction, Punjab vide order dated 14.05.1998, however, the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 02.01.2002. 3.
Learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, restricts his prayer to only with regard to recovery as it could not have been effected in wake of fact that there was neither any mis&representation nor fraud and thus relies on the judgment in
, CWP&
CWP-18369-2002 (O&M) - 211341&2003, decided on 20.09.2010, SLP against which was dismissed on 05.12.2014, the relevant paras whereof read thus: "5. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this petition : "It is in the light of the above pronouncement. no longer open to the authorities granting the benefits, no matter erroneously, to contend that even when the employee concerned was not at fault and was not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the authorities they are entitled to recover the benefit that has been received by the employee on the basis of any such erroneous grant.
We say so primarily because if the employee is not responsible for the erroneous grant of benefit to him/her, it would induce in him the belief that the same was indeed due and payable. Acting on that belief the employee would, as any other person placed in his position arrange his affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules.
Having induced that belief in the employee and made him change his position and arrange his affairs in a manner that he would not otherwise have done, it would be unfair, inequitable and harsh for the Government to direct recovery of the excess amount simply because on a true and correct interpretation of the rules, such a benefit was not due. It does not require much imagination to say that additional monetary benefits going to an employee may not always result in accumulation of his resources and savings. Such a benefit may often be utilized on smaller luxuries of life which the employee and his family may not have been able to afford had the benefit not been extended to him.
The employees can well argue that if it was known to them that the additional benefit is only temporary and would be recovered back from them, they would not have committed themselves to any additional expenditure in their daily affairs and would have cut their coat according to their cloth.
CWP-18369-2002 (O&M) - 3already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them."
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner. In the meantime, in the interregnum period if any recovery has been effected, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The action of the respondents in regard refixation of pay, however, is maintained."
4.
A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in , wherein by relying on 2 and !, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that generally, the recovery of amounts paid in excess are impermissible to be effected.
5.
Learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 6.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 21.02.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 2 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 3 (2015) 4 SCC 334