Tara Chand vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and Others Manmohan Pal Jit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—The aforesaid two petitions bearing CWP No. 336 and 2090 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioner(s) for refutation of their pension and refund of the amount recovered from their death-cum-retirement gratuity along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. For ready reference the facts of CWP No. 336 of 2013 would be taken. Petitioner Tara Chand was granted selection grade on 1.1.86 and his pay was refixed at Rs. 1500/- in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.86. Thereafter he was granted first and second proficiency step up on completion of 16 and 24 years service w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and 1.12.97 respectively. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2007 attaining the age of superannuation. His pension case was sent to respondent No. 6 who returned the same with the observation that the proficiency step up is to be counted from the date of grant of selection grade and directed to regulate his pay. The same was resubmitted by respondent No. 5 and was again returned by respondent No. 6 vide letter dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-2) and thereupon respondent No. 4 refixed the pay of the petitioner after withdrawing first and second proficiency step up granted on completion of 16 and 24 years service and reduced the pay. His DCRG payment order was prepared showing the amount of Rs. 3,37,112/- and recovery of Rs. 75,468/- on account of excess payment of salary. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner states that he restricts his claim qua recovery only and does not challenge refixation of pay/pension.

Reply has been filed by respondent No. 5. The ground taken by the said respondent for recovering the amount from the petitioner is that he was wrongly granted 1st and 2nd proficiency step up on 01.01.1996 and 1.12.1997 respectively which were to be given after counting 16 and 24 years service from 1.1.1986 onwards and the recovery effected by respondent No. 4 is perfectly legal. Reliance has been placed on para 16 of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 431 : 2012 (8) SCC 417 to canvass that excess payment made can always be recovered at any time since it is public money which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over payment nor that of the recipients.

Having heard both the learned counsel and going through the case law cited above I am of the opinion the amount of money which has been paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered in the light of observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Parsad Uniyal''s case (supra) which carves an exception relying upon the earlier judgments of the said Court that such benefits released to the employees during the service cannot be recovered from the retiral benefits. Paras 14 and 17 of the said judgment would be relevant and the same are reproduced herein below:

We may point out that in Syed Abdul Qadir case such a direction was given keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case since the beneficiaries hand either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.

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.

Resultantly, in view of the above, the aforesaid writ petitions are partly allowed. The recovered amounts from the retiral benefits of the petitioner(s) are directed to be released to them within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner would be entitled to recover the same with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of payment.