Bimla Devi and Others vs State of H.P. and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has confined the case of the Petitioners for the relief of Rs. 12901/- wrongly deducted from the DCRG of the original Petitioner, who died on 1.2.2008 during the pendency of the petition.

The brief facts of the case are that the pay of the Petitioner was fixed at Rs. 8100/- on 1.1.1997 and Rs. 8375/- on 1.1.1998. The Petitioner was allowed the benefit of additional pay of Rs. 50/-w.e.f. 1.11.1994 even though the Petitioner was entitled to w.e.f. 1.1.1993 as per the Finance Department letter dated 17.2.1993.

The further case of the Petitioner is that the pension papers of the Petitioner were sent to the Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh. The Senior Deputy Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, took the objection regarding grant of additional pay to the Petitioner and has also taken the objection regarding the fixation of basic pay of the Petitioner in the revised pay scale and granting of increment from the normal date. Thereupon the Respondents made illegal recovery of Rs. 12901/- from the DCRG of the Petitioner. The Respondents recovered Rs. 9210/- on account of excess amount of increment drawn by the Petitioner and Rs. 3691/-on account of additional pay granted to the Petitioner.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner neither misrepresented nor played fraud for obtaining pecuniary benefit of Rs. 12901/-. The Respondents of their own gave benefit of Rs. 12901/- to the Petitioner which he has accepted. The Respondents without issuing any notice to the Petitioner have wrongly, illegally deducted an amount of Rs. 12901/-from the DCRG of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others,

The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the Petitioner was wrongly given benefit of Rs. 12901/- and when it came to the notice of the Department that the Petitioner has taken wrong benefit of Rs. 12901/- to which he was not entitled , the amount of Rs. 12901/- was deducted from the DCRG of the Petitioner. It has been submitted that the Department has every right to rectify the mistake at any stage.

It is not the case of the Respondents that any notice was given to the Petitioner before affecting recovery of Rs. 12901/- nor it is the case of the Respondents that Petitioner misrepresented or played fraud for obtaining benefit of Rs. 12901/-. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had no knowledge that he was not entitled to the benefit of Rs. 12901/- and, therefore, he had drawn that amount when it was offered to him. Now, it is not possible for Petitioners to return the amount. The original Petitioner had spent the amount of Rs. 12901/-, who has since expired.

In Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) where the excess amount which was 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 what they were entitled to. 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. On those facts, the Supreme Court has held no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the Appellant teachers should be made. In the present case also, the amount of Rs. 12901/- was paid by the Department to the Petitioner without their being any mis-representation or fraud on the part of the Petitioner. He had also no knowledge that he was not entitled to monetary benefit of Rs. 12901/-.

No other point was urged.

The result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed to the extent that the Respondents are not entitled to recover Rs. 12901/- from the DCRG of the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12901/- to the heirs of original Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by any Petitioner to Respondent No. 3, failing which the Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of Rs. 12901/- . The petition stands disposed of on above terms.