Ved Pal vs The State of Haryana

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

The petitioner, who was serving as Sanskrit Teacher under the Haryana State Education Department, retired on 30.4.2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He was given re-employment on the same very post i.e. Sanskrit teacher from 1.5.2013 to 31.3.2014 vide order dated 18.4.2013. During the course of his reemployment, petitioner was served with a notice dated 24.1.2014 contemplating the recovery for having received salary in excess for the period from 1.5.2013 to 31.12.2013. At that stage, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition (CWP No. 3231 of 2014) impugning the notice dated 24.1.2014. On 20.2.2014, the said petition was disposed of with the observations that in case the petitioner files a reply to the impugned notice, the Block Education Officer, Matlauda, District Panipat would consider the same and take a final decision thereupon within a period of one week. The petitioner filed reply dated 26.2.2014 to the notice dated 24.1.2014, and the same has been rejected vide order dated 7.3.2014, Annexure P6.

The instant petition has been filed impugning the order of rejection dated 7.3.2014, Annexure P6, and thereby fastening a recovery of Rs. 1,18,708/- towards excess salary drawn during the period of reemployment.

Mr. R.S. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is a retiree and as such, no recovery could have been effected from him at this stage. It is further submitted that at the time of fixation of pay during the course of re-employment, there was no mis-representation or fraud attributed to the petitioner and as such even on such count, recovery in the light of impugned order cannot sustain. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Bansi Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Others, .

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

The petitioner was given re-employment vide order dated 18.4.2013 which is placed on record at Annexure P1. Condition No. 5 contained in the said order clearly recited that the salary payable to the petitioner upon re-employment would be as per provisions of CSR (II) i.e. last pay drawn minus pension. On 24.1.2014, the petitioner was served with a notice that during the course of re-employment i.e. from 1.5.2013 to 31.3.2014, the salary payable was Rs. 95,212/- as per condition No. 5 of the reemployment order, whereas he has received excess salary i.e. a total amount of Rs. 2,14,620/-. Accordingly, a recovery of Rs. 1,18,708/- was contemplated. After disposal of Civil Writ Petition No. 3231 of 2014, wherein liberty had been granted by this Court to the petitioner to respond to the notice, the final impugned order dated 7.3.2014, Annexure P6, has been passed and a perusal of the same would reveal that his pay was to be fixed as per last pay drawn minus pension and pension would include the component of gratuity as also DCRG. As regards the calculations furnished in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner would have nothing to say.

Insofar as the contention regarding the petitioner being a retiree and a recovery being fastened on him at this stage, and that too, without any misrepresentation and fraud having been committed by him is concerned, even such contention is misconceived.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, had considered a number of judgments delivered earlier in point of time and had observed that no general proposition of law had been laid down to the effect that if the State or its officials establish that there was mis-representation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, only then the amount paid could be recovered. Rather it was held that excess payment of public money i.e. "tax payers money" belongs neither to the Officers who have effected over payment nor to the recipients. It was further held that any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring a few exceptions i.e. if the employee had already retired or was on the verge of the retirement or was occupying a very low post in the administrative hierarchy.

In the facts of the present case, the recovery directed against the petitioner is not with regard to any excess amount having been released in his favour during the course of his service. The recovery herein is only with regard to the tenure of his re-employment which he had accepted voluntarily postretirement. As such, the petitioner would not fall within the exceptions carved out in Chandi Prasad Uniyal''s case (supra).

Even the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Bansi Lal''s case (supra) would be distinguishable on facts as the recovery in that case was in relation to certain monetary benefits that had been released during the period of service and sought to be recovered after the date of retirement. That apart, the recovery in the present case, in the light of impugned order, is on account of correct fixation of pay as per condition No. 5 contained in the order of reemployment i.e. salary equal to last pay drawn minus pension. The petitioner having availed the benefit of re-employment cannot be permitted to enjoy salary in excess of his entitlement and which was released in his favour by error. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 7.3.2014. Writ petition is dismissed.