High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/7269/2020allowed

Jaswinder Singh And Others v. The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Chandigarh

2025-03-03Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi13 pages

CWP-7269-2020 (O&M)

!"!#$%&%&%'

"(!#) !#*+ #) + "

!# "

, "-"

+ !*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

CWP-13917-2020 (O&M) 2 3!#*+ #) + "

!# "

, "-"

+ !*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

& CWP-7266-2020 (O&M)

44! #) + "

!# "

, "-"

+ !*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

5 CWP-11477-2020 (O&M)

6!+ #7

#)!

#) + "

!# "

, "-"

+ !*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

' CWP-6650-2020 (O&M)

"+ )

!# , "-"

+ !*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

8 CWP-6885-2021 (O&M) 3!

4 #) + "

!# "

, "-"

+ !*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

: CWP-4128-2021 (O&M) +

!#*+ #) # +

!# "

, "-"

!*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

; CWP-9168-2021 (O&M)

49-4

!# , "-"

+ !*+- -#.

/ #) 0 # 1+ #)!* +

"2#) #

$ %

& $ '

( )

!* + "*

, -)

.*+ "*

++# "*

$/)

%) 0

*1!*

$ )

))

&2 /) 0

++# "* !* + "* .*+ "*

(

**.

3( /

$ 0

* -% '' /

) / 5 5 ))

) )/ ') 7

% 5 5 ) '

8 )

, % "**

9 )% / 9 / / 5

% 5 9 '

%' ) 5 "* "* "*+ /

5% )))

8 )

%' ) ) )% ))% / '

9 )% / / 5 9

# 8 ) 5' 9 )%

5 5 7 "* "* "*+ :9 ;

' 25 ( / 7 )) 7

' 25 7 / 25 "* "* "*+ 5 "* "* "*+ 9 )%

% "*!

) )

/ 5) / '

/ '

)% / /( ) )

)% ' 5% = )' + )/ 5

0>5)

' 7

"# $%&'

( "

). #*

,- ./010!

- 021

)

"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:! (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class!III and Class!IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

) 5 / '

) )

/( ) )

'% 5 5 ' /

, )%

% "*1 / / 5

% "*!

/ ) / '

% / / )

' #* ,

%3!-

** 8 ) 5 5) 5

) ' #* ,

%3!

* ? /

' 0>5)

' 7 4 33 "5001 "# ./0/

( " 6

"# ( "

- " "# " '

/ '

)% ' = )'

)

"(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." *1 7

9 ') '

/ /% 5) 9

% % '

7 5 ' ' '

8 )

) )

' " 6

%3!-

(/)

%' / *# 7 '% '

/ ' / , "* "* "*+ / 25

@ , "* "* "*+ 25 0

% ) 0 )%

) %

, ' /

0 '

)' , "* "* "*+ '')%

* A

% )

0 , "* "* "*+

' ) %

' )5) % ) ' /

% 0 / )% % "*!

/ / 5 "* "* "*+ 52 5 ( 0 '

% /

' '

@ '% )% / )

' 0

5 5

) ) / ))/ ( ' ))% / ' 0B5)

' 7

#* 8 ,

%3!

" 6 8 ,

%3! *+ 7 )

) )/ ) 0>5)

' 7 )

) , # "** ) " 6 ,

"9"3 4

(

;< 3( :

( "

4 %

( "

- "* :*;

* "# "* )

) , !.*

"*!

) < 6##"( $ , % ,

( ( "

"# $ ( "

"*!

:*;

C< +1 *1 * "*!

2 )% ))% ) )5)%

% '

)))% )

6##"( $ , % , ,

%3!

D15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State resorted to! against Daffodils, which was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.

16. The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in holding that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of inquiry in judicial review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection of its tender. However, what the impugned judgment clearly overlooks is that the action of the state, not to procure indefinitely, on an assumption of complicity by Daffodils, was in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice."

)

" ,

%3!

"19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has laid down following:!

"... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee - in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross!examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report."

$ / )/ 5 )

) )

) )/ 5

))/ )% "

@ ') / ' /)) )) "* "* "*+ '

, ' '

1* * "*

/% 5 "* "* "*+ ))% / /

% "*!

' ) )

25 "* "* "*+ 5 '

)5)

* A ,

' 25 ))/ 5 9 / ' % "*1 '

))

9 )%

$ / '

/)) )

) )/

)% ))/

<)) ) 9 )%

/))

7 )% 5

/ )%

9 5(

/( %

7 ) 9 )%

/)) ' ))

) ) 5'

'% ()% )' )% /

' )% ))/

7 '% 5 9

)

7 )) )% / %

))

A 5 ) '

) ) )% 5% ))) % )

) )/ ) )) )%

/ %

7 ) % )% /)) )

)

# & - /)

, .1+ ""

* "1 "" ) '

)

"# ;- ) / )/ 5 ) 5 5 9 ))

)

"11. State has pervasive obligations to discharge in relation to maintaining its expected standards of employer employee relationship. As already noticed, one of the important facets of such obligations is to be reasonable and fair in granting service benefit to its employees in accordance with service rules and the principles enunciated on pronouncement of judgments by the Courts. When judgments attain finality to which the State is a party, duty is casted upon the State to grant relief to its employees who are similarly situated and on identical facts. Benefit of such approach are many and it causes no disadvantage to the interests of the State. It is not necessary for the State to require each one of its employees to approach the Courts of law for grant of a relief which the State ought to grant to the employees in normal course of its administration, particularly, the cases of the kind afore!referred. Such principles is well known and accepted for years now. By referring to few judgments we would only predicate the principle with greater

emphasis of its application in the day!to!day affairs of the State. In the case of 6!

7% 4 " "# ( ( "

- 022=5!

1>1 0!

1.5 !

the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:!

"The allotment of seats should go according to merit. It does not depend upon who comes to Court and who does not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the Court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means of

E $ / )% '

5 )) )% /'

5 % )

) )/ 5( '= 5 /)) =

))/ 5 '

+ '))

) % ) !

) ) < +%&1%'

< kanchan

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No