RSA No.3632 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3632 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.07.2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant V E R S U S Ashok Bambah ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. P. S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A. S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for restraining the appellant from making certain deductions from the retiral dues paid to the said respondent on the finding that no notice was issued before making these deductions. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions of law:- 1. “Whether the action of the appellant in ivoking one of the conditions of VRS to the effect that all payments to the optee would be subject to payment by him of “any amount found outstanding against him and payable by him to the company” is legal and valid? 2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff had given authority to the appellant company to deduct any amount which RSA No.3632 of 2008 -2- might be found outstanding against him at the time of releasing his terminal dues under VRS Scheme? 3. Whether the action of the appellant co. in deducting the amount of Rs.63,188/- wrongly paid to respondent during his service period from his terminal dues in terms of the authority vested with the appellant co. contained in the VRS Scheme is legal, valid and justified?” I find that apart from the question of notice the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported as 2009(1) SCT 611 held as follows:- “This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of 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 RSA No.3632 of 2008 -3- 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. 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.” RSA No.3632 of 2008 -4- In this view of the matter, the questions proposed do not arise and consequently, this appeal is dismissed. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 14, 2009 JUDGE ashish