High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19711/2024dismissed

Pawan Kumar And ORS v. Uhbvn Ltd And ANR

2025-12-10Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar14 pages

"#$% !& '()*%+ ,,, *(-(-'!*%+ .+, ((% %/!

-01- .-(%!

-2$ 3-$-(*& !& !'()*% ,,, *+4'!&*!(+ *+*%5*& '!6 7,, 8 %'!'#!9*& '!6 ,, 8 41'&*& '!6 ,, 8 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced ? No Whether full judgment is pronounced ?

Yes 6 :3

, ; ;

;

< ,

! ""#$""%

certiorari '

( '

)# )* ")"+ . "/ '

-$!

0$ ) )1 ") 2 '

- 3 0$

0 -

3 4 ( 5

"1 )% ")"+ !

0 - ) ) "))#

0 ' ) )1 ") 2

'0 ' !

) )1 ") 2

0 ) )1 ") 2

6 3 0

! ) 0 3 " "

7 "% "))1 5

.8'

(

0 9 ' 9 '

9 ' 4

:- :' ,;:8/ '

:' 0 ) ) "))# &

) ) "))# !

& 0

3 < 0 5 ! : , =<5:>/ 0 < <5:

= !

!0 '

<5:

6'3 " )1 ") ?

."/

7 < 5

' !0 3 '

@ .8'

A.?*?.") + 3 * )" ") 2 .?/ 3 A

, / 8 " "#?

") 2

3 + )* ") 2 .+/ ?

@ ? )* ") 2 .2/ 5 "% "))1 3 ) )1 ") 2 @

- 0 ? )* ") 2

) )1 ") 2 <

9 '

! -

) )1 ") 2

0 -

3 ! 3 ;

+ A

inter alia, 0 5

"% "))1 -

0 ) ) "))#

!(0 ? )* ") 2 5

) )1 ") 2

0 -

) )1 ") 2 0 '

'0 @ ' )# )* ")"+ . "/ !0

0 !

9 ,/ < 0 ! .

0 - 5 "% "))1

"+ )% ") 2 < !

' . "/ A <>! 3

Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2022 AIR SC 2153 0 '

03 ! 3 0 3 3 3 0 ! 3

6'3 <>! 3

State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015(1) SCT 195 ") ) ") % . ?/ 0

B @3

)% )# ") * 0 3 3 0 -

03 0

' 8 !0

8 %

! ) )1 ") 2 0

' 0 5

! 3 "% "))1$)+ " "))1

8 . /

? )* ") 2 .2/ 8 3'

"1 )% ")"+ 5 ' '

0 @ '

- 0 Per contra,

7 0 "))"

! 0 '

' .8'

B !

' ) )1 ") 2

' 3 ! 3

0 Thomas Daniel> ,supra/ Rafiq Masih> ,supra/ A 3 D '

' -

7 =3 >

@ ' !

' 7 0 ") 2

5 @ !3

= .

3 3 & 4

.?/

.+/

3 3'

' 7 " )? ")"

.#/ '

! !'

! 0 '

3 ;. ;

;

< '

"% "))1 5

.8'

(

9 9

9 4

;:8 :

: 0 ) ) "))# < 3 - 0 3

<5:

@ ' 3

= !

6'3 " )1 ") ?

."/ 4

' !0 5

! "In view of the above said circumstances, present writ petition is allowed and the order Annexure P"8 dated 2.12.2012 declining the proposal of the Board of Directors by the Standing Committee of Bureau of Public Enterprises communicated through the Superintendent Power for Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Power Department, is hereby set aside. It will be open to the petitioners to seek implementation of the order of the Board of Directors and consequential reliefs in accordance with law as the financial burden is to be borne by none else by the Corporation itself. It is left open to the Board of Directors to implement its decision with effect from any date decided by the Board."

/ % @

' "% "))1 '

) ) "))# 3 0 3 !( 3 A

A <>! 3

? )* ") 2 .2/ ' ! ) )1 ") 2 *

0 -

. !3

5 9 !

7 "2 ) "))% @ !

! '

3 &

, "% "))1/ 3

> 60 ! 3 3'

3 . '

0 ' 0 3 0 .8'

' !

7 ! =3 > B

3 '

' 7 33 " )? ")"

.#/ 3 !0 ' 3 0 8 !0

.*/ 5 '

! "From the pre"page & above, it can be seen that the office of FA/HQrs, UHBVNL, Panchkula has misplaced his original noting titled as Revamping of Finance, Accounts & Audit wing. On the other hand the office of Chief Accounts Officer, UHBVNL, Panchkula has also misplaced his original file along with all relevant documents/annexures wherein the approval has been obtained to grant benefit of notional pay fixation prior to 01.09.2015 to all Accounts Personnels."

) 5

33 0 3

' '

3 ! ) ) "))# 3 0

@ 0

5 3 6'3

D !0 - 3 3 !0 '

C' 5 <>! 3

Thomas Daniel> ,supra/ ( 0 ' 0 (0 @ 0 -

3 ! ! 0

3 3 '

' C ! D '

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.

10. In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 this Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account of wrong

construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus : "5. 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 the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the 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 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."

11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 this Court considered an identical question as under:

"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7"61999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]): (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any

misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) 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.

28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.

29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in"service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of

the circular dated 7"6"1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11"9"2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11"9"2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made."

12. In Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants"teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/ understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus:

"59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter"affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials

7 concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made."

' '

( !( '

! 3

! '

-3.

nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria, .

' '

sublato fundamento cadit opus, .

3 &

'3 0 ! 3 '

30 ! 3

.C' 5 <>! 3

Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others, (2003) 8 SCC 319, '

' C 5 '

"15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter.

17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.

18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. ,3

/ 3;

3 @

( '' + @

;

@ ) " ")"2 vishnu B '$ E$8 B !

E$8