Ashok Parkash vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 20.08.2008 and letter dated 23.10.2009 appended to the petition as Annexure P-1 and P-2 seeking to effect recovery of Rs. 99,424/- from his salary. The petitioner was granted financial benefit on account of re-fixation of pay on account of time bound promotional pay scales. It was discovered by the respondents that the benefit had been erroneously granted to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order was passed in the year 2009 seeking to effect recovery of Rs. 99,424/- by way of monthly installment of Rs. 4000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since there was no misrepresentation on his behalf, benefit granted to him can not be withdrawn in view of the decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (3) SCT 333 and the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others,

The prayer is opposed by the respondents who have stated that recovery was legitimately resorted to in the year 2009 and keeping in view the hardship of the petitioner it was directed to be recovered at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the present petition as observed in Chandi Prasad Uniyal''s case (supra) which is as follows:-

We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case (supra) and in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.

Admittedly, the petitioner was granted the benefit erroneously. He was in service when the impugned orders were passed and he retired three years thereafter.

Consequently, he can not derive the benefit from the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above cited case regarding any hardship caused to him as he does not fall within any of the exceptions carved out therein. Having regard to the aforesaid and noticing the fact that the observations of the Supreme Court are straightway attracted to the present case and also the fact that the petitioner questions the action of the respondents a belatedly, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the present case and the same is dismissed as such.