Kiran Bala & ANR v. The St Of Pb & ORS

2023:PHHC:125350 201-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-11662-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.09.2023 Kiran Bala and another . . . . Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ****

Present:

Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against them by the office orders dated 10.06.2005 (P-10 & P-11) wherein it has been alleged that excess amount is required to be recovered from the petitioners on the basis of audit objections.

2. The orders of recovery dated 10.06.2005 were stayed by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2005.

3. This Court also notices that the petitioner had made available an order passed by the Supreme Court to the concerned respondent for not making recovery, but the same was ignored while passing the order.

4. In State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334, the Supreme Court held as under:

MOHIT GOYAL 2023.09.23 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11662-2005 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:125350 "12. Reference may first of all be made to the decision in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, wherein this Court recorded the following observation in para 58: (SCC p. 491) "58. 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 Haryana3, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India2, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Directors, B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India', Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar10, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the recovery could not have been made solely on the basis of audit objections. The interim order dated 29.07.2005 passed by the Court therefore is made absolute and the impugned orders dated 10.06.2005 (P-10 & P-11) are quashed with all consequential benefits.

6. Writ Petition stands allowed.

7. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE September 22, 2023 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2023.09.23 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document