C.W.P. No.14769 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14769 of 1989 Date of Decision: 12.11.2010 Gurdev Singh Sra ……Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders Annexures P-7, P-10 and P-11 whereby his pay has been reduced and recovery has been ordered. As regards the reduction of pay no argument has been addressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, as regards the recovery it is not disputed by the respondents that the C.W.P. No.14769 of 1989 -2- excess payment was not made as a result of malfeasance on the part of the petitioner. The controversy regarding recovery has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009(1) SCT 611, relevant portion of which reads 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 in- terpretation 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 hard- ship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the em- ployee 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 par- ticular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants-teachers was not be- C.W.P. No.14769 of 1989 -3- cause 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 in- terpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held re- sponsible. Rather, the whole confusion was be- cause of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bi- har. 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.” In the circumstances, while quashing the impugned orders qua recovery the writ petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 12, 2010 JUDGE ashish