IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 26, 2008 Haryana Government through Collector, Hisar and another ....Appellants Versus Randhir Singh, Works Inspector .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.K. Rathee, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by plaintiff-respondent was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar vide judgment dated 22.2.2007. Order passed by the defendants on 25.2.2005 regarding recovery from the pay of plaintiff on account of wrong fixation of his pay with effect from 1.1.1996 was declared illegal, null and void and accordingly, set aside. The defendants were restrained from implementing the said order against the plaintiff and from making any recovery from his salary. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants filed an appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar on 21.1.2008. The defendants have now filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 20078 -2- Civil Procedure. As is clear from the testimony of DW1 Basau Ram, Sub Divisional Engineer, who was examined by the defendants, the pay of the plaintiff was fixed at Rs. 5,150/- by the department at its own level. It was not the result of any representation, much less mis- representation, made by the plaintiff before the defendants for fixation of his pay. The said witness also deposed that the plaintiff never played any fraud upon the department. Prior to 1.1.1996, he was given three increments within two years. If the over payment had been made by the defendants on account of some mistake, it cannot be held that the plaintiff played any fraud upon the defendants or made any misrepresentation for getting higher standard pay scales. It is settled law that if any excessive payment had been made by the department to its employee for no fault of the employee, the excess amount could not be recovered later on. At the most, the department could re-fix the pay of the employee and then keep on paying the same but it cannot recover the payment earlier made. In this context, the Court derives support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1995(1) Services Cases Today 668 and Union of India Vs. M. Bhasker and Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 20078 -3- others 1996(4) Services Cases Today 56, wherein it was held that when an employee had been getting the benefit of any higher standard pay scale or increment, although he was not entitled to the same, the amount already received, as a result of benefit of the higher standard pay scale, cannot be recovered. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram’s case (supra) are as follows :- “Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.” A Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others 2004(2) Recent Services Judgments 155 also held Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 20078 -4- as follows :- “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that the sole issue relating to recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner stands determined in favour of the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered in ASI Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (C.W.P. No. 15762 of 2003, decided by this bench on 5.12.2003), specially on account of the fact that the said excess amount is not alleged to have been paid to the petitioner on account of some misrepresentation made by him.” In view of the above, it cannot be held that the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants do not arise for consideration. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, being devoid of any merit. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 26, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO