Om Parkash v. State Of Haryana And Others
! "
#
! "
$%
%
%& Prayer !
" #
$$%&$$'
( )
* +
* * "
-. ./ $.$0 1 2$
-
*
$03
Brief Facts $
*, ) , $$ .- !4/5 -! ./ $..5
6
8 9 ,
( .$ .5 $..% ,
( .5 .! $.$!
-! ./ $.$0
*
*
- : , # ,
,
,, ;
,
+ * "
* ,
, ,
)
"
-. ./ $.$0 * ₹0-/05'&2
1 ,
#,
"
*
,
1 ,
# , "
, % Contentions On the behalf of petitioner '
=
*
"
₹ * 0-/05'&2
+ "
#
"
/ )
* #*
(
2)))
,,
,
,
*
1 ,
# 2 , " #,*
#
,
*
"
,
)
,,#
"
"
1 ,
,
#
"*
=
* * , +
"
!.
* "
# "
*
,
6
!0
!% ( )
On behalf of the Respondents !!
" ,
!! .4 $.$5 #
6
> 9
#
!
0 "# " *
(
9
8 ? ;
1 ,
$/ .$ $.!/ 9
8 ? =
@
)
* ,
1
" 1
9 , 9&9
1
+ , !$ ) #,
,, * ,
?
$5 .0 $.$- (+
-'5..&2
$4%..&2
*
1
'4..&2 , :
*
B
2 1
$5 .0 $.$- !- =
#,
*
#+
#*
1
1
, 0-/05'&2
# "
) * "
"
!0 )
# "
#
#
,
#
,
=
#,
1
#
1 1
* #
*
Analysis !$ ?
#,
*
+
<
,
1 ,
1
,
'
** * ,
, ,
#
, +
6 !- 1 "
Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1994(5) SLR 753 Purshotam Lal and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2007(1) RSJ 150
" + *
, #
, #
*, Budh Ram v. State of Haryana 2009(3) SCT 333
Having gone through the averments made in the writ petitions, we are of the opinion that we also need not set out in detail the factual matrix in which the question referred to us arises for consideration for determination especially when the facts appear to us to be peculiar to each case forming part of this Bunch. Having said so, the question referred to us can in our opinion be seen from three distinct dimensions. These are : i) Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered from the employees were granted to them on the basis of any fraud, misrepresentation or any other act of deception; ii) Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered were granted on the basis of a bonafide mistake committed by the authority granting the same while applying or interpreting a provision contained in the service rule, regulation or any other memo or circular authorising such grant regardless whether or not grant of benefits involved the performance of higher or more onerous duties by the employee concerned;
iii) Cases that do not fall in either one of the above two categories but where the nature of the benefit and extent is so unconnected with his service conditions that the employee must be presumed to have known that the benefit was flowing to him undeservedly because of a mistake by the authority granting the same.
Dealing with category ii, 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.
!0 * +
" State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696 "
,
"
"*
1 "
#
+
*
1 *, ?
Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475
Rafiq Masih (supra)
" + *
, #
,
#
+
*C*
(
" #
1
*
+
,
" "
1+
,
"
6
, "
!5
Rafiq Masih (supra) "
,
"
*
"*
,
,,#
+ " * ,
* , "
,
"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."
!%
+
"
,#
,
" *
C ,
"
#
,
1 #
1
#
,
,
+
,
1
,
!'
D+
*
" *
1
"
#
,
"
1
,
,
,
#
!/ *
8
1+
#
*,
+
"
,
1 ,
# " "
, ,"
,
Conclusion !4 ) "
**
* "
-. ./ $.$0 1 2$
1 ,
,
+
$.
"
"
, 0-/05'&2 "
%3
"
- "
$!
!
%"
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No