Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. And Others vs Nitya Nand on 24 July, 2025
2025:HHC:25161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA Nos. 457 of 2025 alongwith
connected matters
Decided on: 24.07.2025
__________________________________________________________
.
1. CMP(M) No. 2036 of 2024 & LPA No. 457 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Nitya Nand …Respondent
2. CMP(M) No. 2139 of 2024 & LPA No. 461 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Kaushalya Sharma
r to Versus
3. CMP(M) No. 2140 of 2024 & LPA No. 456 of 2025
…Respondent
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Saroj Kumari …Respondent
4. CMP(M) No. 2142 of 2024 & LPA No. 458 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Jur Dassi …Respondent
5. CMP(M) No. 75 of 2025 & LPA No. 487 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Santosh Kumari …Respondent
6. CMP(M) No. 76 of 2025 & LPA No. 463 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-2-
Shashi Kiran …Respondent
7. CMP(M) No. 78 of 2025 & LPA No. 466 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
.
Rukmani Devi …Respondent
8. CMP(M) No. 79 of 2025 & LPA No. 468 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Gautam Dev Bhardwaj …Respondent
9. CMP(M) No. 80 of 2025 & LPA No. 488 of 2025
r to
State of H.P. and others
Versus
…Appellants
Ram Lal …Respondent
10. CMP(M) No. 81 of 2025 & LPA No. 489 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Ram Dassi Kaisth …Respondent
11. CMP(M) No. 82 of 2025 & LPA No. 490 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
BhadurSingh …Respondent
12. CMP(M) No. 84 of 2025 & LPA No. 470 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Yonten Negi …Respondent.
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-3-
13. CMP(M) No. 86 of 2025 & LPA No. 474 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
.
Chander Prabha …Respondent.
14. CMP(M) No. 99 of 2025 & LPA No. 476 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Atam Ram …Respondent
15. CMP(M) No. 101 of 2025 & LPA No. 479 of 2025
State of H.P. and others
r …Appellants
Versus
Lok Pal …Respondent
16. CMP(M) No. 109 of 2025 & LPA No. 491 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Radha Chauhan …Respondent.
17. CMP(M) No. 113 of 2025 & LPA No. 486 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Sunita Devi …Respondent
18. CMP(M) No. 116 of 2025 & LPA No. 485 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chand …Respondent
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-4-
19. CMP(M) No. 120 of 2025 & LPA No. 484 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
.
Mohan Lal …Respondent
20. CMP(M) No. 122 of 2025 & LPA No. 483 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Kumar …Respondent
21. CMP(M) No. 124 of 2025 & LPA No. 481 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
r Versus
Pratap Singh Sharma …Respondent
22. CMP(M) No. 125 of 2025 & LPA No. 459 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Ram Singh Chauhan …Respondent
23. CMP(M) No. 126 of 2025 & LPA No. 460 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Anita Rathore …Respondent
24. CMP(M) No. 128 of 2025 & LPA No. 462 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-5-
Prem Prakash …Respondent
25. CMP(M) No. 129 of 2025 & LPA No. 464 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
.
Sunita Kumari …Respondent
26. CMP(M) No. 130 of 2025 & LPA No. 465 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Kailash Sharma …Respondent
27. CMP(M) No. 134 of 2025 & LPA No. 467 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chand Rathore …Respondent
28. CMP(M) No. 141 of 2025 & LPA No. 469 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Vir Bhadra Singh …Respondent
29. CMP(M) No. 142 of 2025 & LPA No. 471 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Hari Dass …Respondent
30. CMP(M) No. 199 of 2025 & LPA No. 472 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Pawan Kumar …Respondent
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-6-
31. CMP(M) No. 272 of 2025 & LPA No. 473 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
.
Meena Kanwar and another
…Respondent
32. CMP(M) No. 280 of 2025 & LPA No. 475 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Narvada Panta …Respondent
33. CMP(M) No. 281 of 2025 & LPA No. 482 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Tashi Palmo …Respondent
34. CMP(M) No. 284 of 2025 & LPA No. 477 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Purna Devi …Respondent
35. CMP(M) No. 285 of 2025 & LPA No. 478 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Narain Singh …Respondent
36. CMP(M) No. 347 of 2025 & LPA No. 480 of 2025
State of H.P. and others …Appellants
Versus
Kundan Singh …Respondent
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-7-
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting? Yes
.
For the appellant(s): Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh,
Additional Advocate General.
For the respondents: Mr. Prem Prakash Chauhan,
Advocate through video
conferencing with Mr. Karan
Sharma, Advocate in CMP.M
No.2026 of 2024 & LPA No.457
of 2025
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral]
CMP(M) Nos.2036, 2139, 2140, 2142 of 2024 CMP (M)
Nos. 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 99, 101, 109,
113, 116, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 134,
r141, 142, 199, 272, 280, 281, 284, 285 and 347 of
2025
Heard. Keeping in view the averments made in
the application(s), duly supported by the affidavit(s), the
delay in filing the Appeal(s) is condoned.
The applications stand disposed of.
Appeals be registered.
LPA Nos. 457, 461, 456, 458, 487, 463, 466, 468, 488,
489, 490, 470, 474, 476, 479, 491, 486, 485, 484, 483,
481, 459, 460, 462, 464, 465, 467, 469, 471, 472, 473,
475, 482, 477, 478 and 480 of 2025.
The present set of appeals have been filed by
the State against the common judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge, whereby out of 36 writ petitions,
33 writ petitions were decided on 11.10.2023 and 3 writ
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-8-
petitions, i.e. CWP No.7849 of 2023 and CWP Nos. 8397
and 8635 of 2022 were decided on 17.10.2023 &
18.10.2023 respectively. The lead case of the aforesaid
.
batch of petitions was Civil Writ Petition No.6427 of
2022, titled Nitya Nand Sharma versus State of
Himachal Pradesh and others and the learned Single
Judge has referred to the facts of the said case.
Accordingly, we are referring to the facts in the Letters
2. to
Patent Appeal arising out of the said writ petition.
The limited benefit, as such, which the learned
Single Judge gave was that the State was free to re-fix
the pay in the year 2022 in the pay scale of Rs.1365-
2410, but it was directed not to make any recovery from
the petitioners on the basis thereof. Resultantly, it was
directed that if any amount had already been recovered
from the petitioners, the same shall be paid back
forthwith within four weeks.
3. Counsel for the State has vehemently argued
that learned Single Judge did not take into consideration
the fact that when the pay was fixed on 22.08.2017,
(Annexure P-4), there was a condition, as such, that it
was subject to verification, departmental review, and the
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
-9-
final outcome of Suresh Rana’s case. It is not disputed
that the said judgment has attained finality on
01.05.2017 in SLP(C) No.12544 of 2013, titled State of
.
Himachal Pradesh and others versus Ravinder Kumar
and others, (Annexure P-3). It is, thus, submitted that in
view of the aforesaid conditions, any overpayment
detected at a later stage, was liable to be recovered, and
accordingly, the excess amount was recovered in lump
sum.
4.
r to
Counsel for the State has placed reliance on
the judgment of Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and
Haryana and others versus Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14
SCC 267, to contend that in such cases, the employees
are not entitled to challenge the re-fixation of pay and are
bound by the recovery initiated by the State.
5. It is further argued that there has been
continuous litigation by the Health Workers regarding
the revision of pay scales and thus, they were well aware
of their pay scales. It has been submitted that the
mistake particularly occurred in District Shimla, where
the initial pay was wrongly fixed at Rs.1410, whereas in
other Districts, the pay scale was correctly restricted to
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 10 –
Rs.1365-2410. Therefore, it is contended that while the
learned Single Judge had rightly upheld the re-fixation of
pay, but wrongly directed that recovery be not effected.
.
6. Mr. Prem Prakash Chauhan, Advocate,
[through video conferencing], on the other hand, has
argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge
is justified, in accordance with law, as laid down by the
Apex Court in several judgments, including State of
(2015) 4 SCC 334.
r to
Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
7. A perusal of the record would go on to show
that as contended by the State, the re-fixation of the
employees’ pay had been done, in view of the interim
order passed in Suresh Rana’s Case on 10.02.2014 and
in such circumstances, the fixation was subject to
adjustments for any overpayment detected, and such
excess amount was liable to be recovered in lump sum.
8. It came to the notice on 23.12.2021,
(Annexure A-1), of the Director of Health Services who
had written to the Chief Medical Officer, Shimla that the
male and female Health Workers in District Shimla were
drawing pay with an initial start of Rs.1410/- and had
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 11 –
referred to the order passed by this Court in CWP(T)
No.14084 of 2008, titled Suresh Rana and others vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith other
.
petitions. A clarification was accordingly sought
regarding the grant of such higher pay scale to this
category, which was stated to be causing financial loss to
the State Exchequer and creating an anomaly in the
entire cadre.
9.
In response, the Chief Medical Officer had
written on 31.12.2021, (Annexure
r A-2) that when
representation(s) had been received from certain other
employees seeking stepping up of their pay in
comparison to their juniors, clarification had been asked
for earlier on 31.01.2020. It was then again brought to
the notice of the Director of Health Services by the Chief
Medical Officer on 31.12.2021, (Annexure A-2) that the
pay of Health Workers in District Shimla had not been
correctly fixed and that it should have been ₹1365/-
instead of ₹1410/- w.e.f. 01.01.1993. Resultantly, the
matter was referred for appropriate directions to review
the pay fixation and issue amended orders.
10. Further, from the said letter (Annexure A-2), it
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 12 –
is clear that the date of knowledge was 31.01.2020, and
it was mentioned that no clarification had been received
with respect to the re-fixation of pay against the junior
.
employees, namely Raj Bhushan and Devi Singh.
11. Resultantly, on 07.01.2022, (Annexure A-3),
the Chief Medical Officer wrote to all the Block Medical
Officer/Senior Medical Officer of District Shimla, that a
proposal should be given for revising the pay fixation
from 1991, placing the employees in the pay scale of
Rs.1350/- instead of Rs.1410/- and to initiate recovery
proceedings in order to remove the pay anomaly.
12. It took the State another seven months to pass
the relevant orders, keeping in view the communication
dated 22.08.2022, (Annexure A-4), which was the subject
matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Block Medical Officer, while placing
reliance upon the communication dated 23.12.2021
(Annexure A-1) and dated 07.01.2022, (Annexure A-3),
thereafter re-fixed the pay.
13. It is pertinent to note that although there was
a proposal, and it had been directed by the Chief Medical
Officer to propose the revised pay fixation, but no notice
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 13 –
was issued to the employees prior to the said action
being taken, which led them to challenge the same.
14. The learned Single Judge, after taking into
.
consideration the judgments rendered on the issue of
recovery, allowed the writ petitions to the limited extent
of quashing the recovery, while upholding the revised pay
fixation. The matter was examined in light of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
(supra), as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in S.S. Choudhary v. State of Himachal
Pradesh and another, 2022 (2) Him. L.R. (DB) 954
and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417.
15. Apart from the aforesaid, the learned Single
Judge also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of
India, (1994) 2 SCC 521;Sahib Ram v. State of
Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18; and Thomas Daniel
v. State of Kerala reported in [2022 SCC Online SC
536]. Resultantly, it was held that since the petitioners
are Class-III employees and the recovery sought to be
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 14 –
effected, pertains to the amount erroneously paid to
them more than five years ago, the same is impermissible
in law. Therefore, the invocation of writ jurisdiction was
.
found to be justified and sustainable.
16. In view of above, we are of the considered
opinion that the law stands well settled on the said issue.
The Apex Court in Rafiq Masih‘s case has specifically
held in paragraph 13 that where payments have been
made over a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous
to make any recovery and it will be an arbitrary action. It
has further been observed that if the mistake of making a
wrongful payment is detected within five years, it would
be open to the employer to recover the same. However,
where payments have been made for a period in excess of
five years, even though it may be open to the employer to
rectify the error, it would be extremely iniquitous and
arbitrary to seek refund of the payments mistakenly
made to the employee. Paragraph 13 of the judgment
reads as under:
“13. First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this
Court in its judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case
recognized, that the issue of recovery revolved on the
action being iniquitous. Dealing with the subject of the
action being iniquitous, it was sought to be concluded,
that when the excess unauthorised payment is
detected within a short period of time, it would be::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 15 –
open for the employer to recover the same.
Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long
duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any
recovery. Interference because an action is iniquitous,
must really be perceived as, interference because the
action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly,
actions in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The logic of the action in the instant situation, is.
iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, because it would be almost
impossible for an employee to bear the financial
burden, of a refund of payment received wrongfully
for a long span of time. It is apparent, that agovernment employee is primarily dependent on his
wages, and if a deduction is to be made from his/her
wages, it should not be a deduction which would
make it difficult for the employee to provide for the
needs of his family. Besides food, clothing and
shelter, an employee has to cater, not only to theeducation needs of those dependent upon him, but
also their medical requirements, and a variety of
sundry expenses. Based on the above consideration,
we are of the view, that if the mistake of making a
wrongful payment is detected within five years, it
r would be open to the employer to recover the same.
However, if the payment is made for a period in
excess of five years, even though it would be open to
the employer to correct the mistake, it would be
extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of
the payments mistakenly made to the employee.”
17. The said observations squarely cover the fact
of the present case. The principle laid down in Paragraph
18 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship, which would govern employees on
the issue of recovery, where payments havemistakenly been made by the employer, in
excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may,
based on the decisions referred to herein
above, we may, as a ready reference,
summarise the following few situations,
wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
i) Recovery from employees belonging to
Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group
‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).
ii) Recovery from retired employees, or
employees who are due to retire within
one year, of the order of recovery.
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 16 –
iii) Recovery from employees, when the
excess payment has been made for a
period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
iv) Recovery in cases where an employee
has wrongfully been required to
discharge duties of a higher post, and
has been paid accordingly, even though
.
he should have rightfully been required
to work against an inferior post.
v) In any other case, where the Court
arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if
made from the employee, would be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such
an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer’s right
to recover”
18. It is not disputed that the employer, as such,
is dealing
r with Class-III employees and that thepayments, as noted, were made from 22.08.2017,
(Annexure P-4) as an interim measure and continued till
the order dated 22.08.2022 was passed, whereby the re-
fixation was done without even issuing notice to the
employees. It is also relevant to record that although the
issue came to the knowledge of the authorities on
31.01.2020, the State took another two and a half years
to pass the order regarding re-fixation and the
consequent recovery, which was ultimately done vide
order dated 22.08.2022.
19. In such circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the present case squarely falls
under Clause (i), (iii), and (v) of the Rafiq Masih‘s case.
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 17 –
The reliance as such, placed upon the judgment in
Jagdev Singh‘s case would not take State‘s case long
way on account of undertaking given. The said case was
.
of a judicial officer, who had been given revised pay scale
and he had furnished undertaking to that effect.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the Apex Court
allowed the appeal of the employer and set aside the
judgment of the High Court. However, the Class-III
employees, as such, cannot be placed at the same
pedestal in view of the law laid down in Rafiq Masih’s
case (supra) and, therefore, we are of the considered view
that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge
is not liable to be interfered with or modified.
20. Recently in Jagdish Prasad Singh versus
State of Bihar and others, (2024) SCC Online SC
1909, while also taking note of the judgment in Thomas
Daniel (supra), the appeals filed by the employees were
allowed and it was held that the reduction of pay scales
and the consequent recovery were arbitrary and also
suffered from bias and non-adherence to the principles of
natural justice. The relevant portions of the judgment,
read as under:
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 18 –
“22. Similarly, this Court in ITC Limited v. State of Uttar
Pradesh held as under:
“108 we may give an example from service
jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is
frequently invoked to give relief to an employee
in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the
pay or other emoluments due to an employee is.
determined and paid by the employer, and
subsequently the employer finds, (usually on
audit verification) that on account of wrong
understanding of the applicable rules by the
officers implementing the rules, excesspayment is made, courts have recognized the
need to give limited relief in regard to recovery
of past excess payments to reduce hardship to
the innocent employees, who benefited from
such wrong interpretation.”
“25. The Government Resolution dated 8th February, 1999
to be specific, the highlighted portion supra is
amendable to the interpretation that it protects the
status and pay of those employees who had received
their time bound promotions prior to 31st December,
r 1995. As a consequence, the Secretary concerned,
while rejecting the representation clearlymisinterpreted and misapplied the said Resolution to
the detriment of the appellant.
26. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court of Patna also seem to havefallen in the same error. In addition thereto, we are of
the view that any step of reduction in the pay scale
and recovery from a Government employee would
tantamount to a punitive action because the same hasdrastic civil as well as evil consequences. Thus, no
such action could have been taken against the
appellant, more particularly, because had had beenpromoted as an ADSO, while drawing the pay scale of
Rs.6500-10500 applicable to the post, way back on
10th March, 1991 and had also superannuated eight
years ago before the recovery notice dated 15th April,2009 was issued. The impugned action directing
reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess
amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also
suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the
principles of natural justice and hence, the same
cannot be sustained.
27. The order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the
State Government directing reduction in the pay scale
of the appellant from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.5500-9000
w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and directing recovery of the
excess amount from him is grossly illegal and
arbitrary and is hereby quashed and set aside. The::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 19 –
impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court does not stand to
scrutiny and is hereby quashed. Therefore, the
appellant shall continue to receive the pension in
accordance with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.
28. In case, if any reduction in pension and consequential
recovery was effected on account of the impugned.
orders, the appellant shall be entitled to the
restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as
applicable.
29. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No order as to
costs.”
21. In Jogeswar Sahoo and others versus The
District Judge, Cuttak & others, Civil Appeal [arising
out of SLP (C) No(s).5918/2024], decided on 04.04.2025
a similar view was taken, wherein it was held that there
was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the
appellants, who were working as Stenographers, and the
financial benefits had been extended by the District
Judge, Cuttack, though the same were not approved by
the High Court. It was noted that the payments were
made in the year 2017, while the recovery was directed in
2023, and the appellants having superannuated and not
holding Gazetted posts, the recovery was not sustainable.
The relevant portions of the judgment, read as under:-
“11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India this
Court considered an identical question as under:
“27. The last question to be considered is whether
relief should be granted against the recovery of the
excess payments made on account of the wrong
interpretation/understanding of the circular dated::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 20 –
7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief
against recovery of excess wrong payment of
emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the
following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v.
State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC
(L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India
[(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27
ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC.
416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v.
Regional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 1652]):
(a) The excess payment was not made on account of
any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the
employee.
(b) Such excess payment was made by the employer
by applying a wrong principle for calculating the
pay/allowance or on the basis of a particularinterpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently
found to be erroneous.
28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess
payment, is granted by courts not because of any
right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of
r judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the
hardship that will be caused if recovery is
implemented. A government servant, particularly one
in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever
emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family.
If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he
would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled
to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess
payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is
granted in that behalf. But where the employee had
knowledge that the payment received was in excess
of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error
is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong
payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery.
The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion,
courts may on the facts and circumstances of any
particular case refuse to grant such relief against
recovery.
29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a
direction that wrong payments should not be
recovered, as pensioners are in a more
disadvantageous position when compared to in-
service employees. Any attempt to recover excess
wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them.
The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation
or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was
added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up,
due to a wrong understanding by the implementing
departments. We are therefore of the view that the
respondents shall not recover any excess payments
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 21 –
made towards pension in pursuance of the circular
dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory
circular dated 11-9-2001. Insofar as any excess
payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001,
obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover
the excess as the validity of the said circular has been
upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in
regard to the wrong calculations earlier made.”
.
12. In Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar excess payment
was sought to be recovered which was made to the
appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong
interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised
Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983.
The appellants therein contended that even if it were
to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the
benefit of additional increment on promotion, the
excess amount should not be recovered from them, it
having been paid without any misrepresentation or
fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants
cannot be held responsible in such a situation and
recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered,
especially when the employee has subsequently
retired. The court observed that in general parlance,
r recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the
employee and when the excess payment has been
made by applying a wrong
interpretation/understanding of a Rule or Order. It
was held thus:
59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been
paid to the appellant 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 whatthey 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 bonafide 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 wholeconfusion was because of inaction, negligence and
carelessness of the officials concerned of the
Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant 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 appellant teachers, we are of the
view that no recovery of the amount that has been
paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be
made.”
22. The said judgments, as such, thus have put a
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
2025:HHC:25161
– 22 –
seal of approval on basic principle of law, and
accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the
judgment passed by learned Single Judge does not suffer
.
from any illegality or infirmity. We do not find any
plausible reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order
passed by the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the
status of the employees, inaction of the State, the period
of long payment, and the lack of any misrepresentation,
on the part of the employees and on account of violation
of the principles of natural justice by the State.
Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed.
23. With the aforesaid observations, the present
appeals are disposed of, alongwith all pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
July 24, 2025
[himani/Shivender]
::: Downloaded on – 30/07/2025 21:15:44 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link