Regular Second Appeal No. 3015 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3015 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.01.2010 K.N. Mathur ...appellant Versus General Manager and others ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of two Regular Second Appeals i.e. RSA No. 576 titled as Iqbal Singh versus General Manager and others and RSA No. 3015 of 2008 titled as K.N. Mathur versus General Manager and others. In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants it would be possible to dispose of these appeals through common order. The respective case pleaded by the appellants is that they were drawing Rs. 8,000/- per month as a basic pay and after circular issued on 11.11.1988 their salaries were reduced to Rs. 6100/- per month. This reduction of pay was on account of fact that Punjab State Electricity Board had regularized the work charge employees and issued revised scales of pay to different employees. The appellant accordingly filed this suit to impugn this reduction of Regular Second Appeal No. 3015 of 2008 2 his pay on the ground that the same was illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. The prayer of the appellants for restraining respondent from recovery of the excess payment was also declined on the ground that they did not file the suits within the period of limitation. The appeals filed by the appellants were also dismissed and accordingly they have filed the present Regular Second Appeals. The common submission made by the counsel for the appellant is that as per the law laid down by this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others 2009 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 1617, the recoveries which are to be effected from the pay and allowance of a person on account of over payment cannot be effected in case the person had not made any misrepresentation to get excess payment. The counsel for the appellant accordingly pleads that atleast recovery of excess payment cannot be effected from the appellants in view of this legal position settled by Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Budh Ram's (supra). The counsel, accordingly, restricts his prayer in the present appeals to this limited extent that the judgments and decrees under appeal be modified to say that the recoveries of the excess payment be not effected from the appellant. The counsel appearing for the respondent could not seriously dispute this proposition as convassed by the counsel for the appellant. In Budh Ram's case (supra), this Court specifically dealt with this proposition whether the government is entitled to recover from an employee any payment made in excess of what he was otherwise entitled to, on account of any mistake or bonafide but Regular Second Appeal No. 3015 of 2008 3 erroneous interpretation or belief regarding any Rule, Regulation or Government instructions whatsoever especially in cases where the employee concerned is not guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in claiming or receiving such monetary benefits. This Court has held that such cases can be categorized in three categories: 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 authorizing 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 -- Answer to this is in the affirmative. Such a case may not fall in category (i) as the employee has not committed any mistake but it is not a case that would fall in category (ii) either – Such a case may be dealt with independently and Regular Second Appeal No. 3015 of 2008 4 the employee concerned called upon to refund to the Government the undeserved payment that he has received- Punjab Civil Services Rules. The case of the appellants is that they were given this benefit may be on the basis of bonafide mistake by the authority where they cannot be found guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation. In such like cases it is held by the Full Bench that the benefit so extended may be stopped for the future but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them. This proposition, apparently is covered by the ratio of law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra). Infact the appellant has raised this plea in his suit, which has been declined. Accordingly, the judgments and decrees under appeal may need to be modified to read that the suit of the plaintiff shall stand partly allowed to the effect that the respondents shall stand restrained from recovering the excess amount paid to the petitioner. However, the respondents shall be justified in making payment to the petitioner at the reduced rate from the date of the order but would not effect recoveries of the excess amount (if any) paid. The judgment and decree under appeal shall stand accordingly modified. The appellant shall be entitled to seek refund of the excess amount if any, recovered from his pay and allowances. Registry is directed to prepare the modified decree passed by this Court. January 07, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE