CWP No. 12923 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12923 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 24, 2009 Devi Krishan Verma and others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.K.Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. **** 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. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in recovering the amount of ACP from their retiral benefits, which was allegedly wrongly granted to them. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that the matter is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 20175 of 2004 titled State of Haryana and others v. Har Pal Singh and others which was disposed of in the following terms:- “In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The CWP No. 12923 of 2007 2 appellants shall revise the pay scales of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the employees who, on fixation of ACP scales are in receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the same cadre/post,then their salary shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be passed within a period of two months of receipt of the copy of this order by the Government. However, if upon revision of the pay scales, any employee is liable to refund any amount, the Government shall not insist on refund of such amount. If any employee is entitled to get any amount by way of pay revision, the said amount shall be made available to him within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Government.” Apart from this in another subsequent decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to the question of refund of over payment has held as follows:- “In Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported as 2009(1) SCT 611, 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 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 CWP No. 12923 of 2007 3 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. 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 CWP No. 12923 of 2007 4 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.” In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed and the recovery of the amount from the retiral dues of the petitioners is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount/s recovered from the petitioner/s within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner/s shall be entitled to 7% interest and in case the amount is not refunded within the aforesaid period of two months then the petitioner/s would be entitle to interest on the interest amount also at the rate of 7% p.a. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 24, 2009 sunita