C.W.P No. 12051 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 12051 of 2008 Date of decision : March 31, 2009 Anand Kumari ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana & others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. H.N.Khanduja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) Vide order dated 18.7.2008, counsel for the petitioner had restricted his claim only to the extent that the recovery which had been effected against the petitioner be declared as illegal. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported as 2009(1) SCT, Hon'ble the Supreme Court after reviewing the entire law on the subject held as follows:- “This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of C.W.P No. 12051 of 2008 ::2:: emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and (b) 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. 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. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants-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. C.W.P No. 12051 of 2008 ::3:: 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 concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-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 appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” Coming to the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the conditions which may validate recovery do not exist. Applying the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others' case (supra), the respondents would not be entitled to make recovery of the amount/s released to the petitioner as overtime. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of recovery are set aside. The respondents are directed not to make any recovery from the petitioner. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 31, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 12051 of 2008 ::4::