Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balvir Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 December, 2025
CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.204 CWP-27016-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.12.2025
Balvir Kaur ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Present: Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.P.S. Hira, DAG, Punjab.
*****
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.(Oral)
1 In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) and letter dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby, pay of the petitioner has been refixed and recovery has been initiated from the pay from the month of December, 2022 in 06 equal installments.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-department on the post of Senior Lab Attendant on 22.09.1988. The State of Punjab revised the pay scale of its employees w.e.f. 01.11.2006. The petitioner was granted the revised pay scale with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 01.11.2006. A notice was issued by the 1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:11 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 2 respondents on 02.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), whereby a proposal of recovery from pay of the petitioner due to wrong fixation of her pay w.e.f.
01.11.2006 was initiated. Reference was made in the abovesaid notice to the letter dated 12.12.2022. A perusal of the abovesaid notice would show that amount was to be recovered in 06 equal installments and pay of the month December, 2022 was kept pending. In view of the abovesaid notice dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-3), wherein it was mentioned that no recovery could be effected from the pay of the petitioner and reliance was made on the instruction dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, in regard to recovery of excess payment made by the employer.
Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-4) considered the abovesaid representation submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2023.
3. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents in recovering an amount of Rs.1,84,224/- from the pay of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute in regard to refixation of pay. Learned counsel submits that as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in regard to wrong fixation 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 3 of pay, no recovery could be effected from the pay of petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner was not on the basis of any mis-statement, concealment of facts or any fraud on the part of the petitioner. He further relies on the instruction issued by the Government of Punjab dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) and submits that recovery is impermissible in law.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the employer has a right to rectify/correct the mistake. He submits that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed w.e.f 01.11.2006 and thereafter, it was rectified and refixed as per the rules. As such, the recovery is permissible in law. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the mistake. It is also contended that before ordering recovery, notices were duly issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the recovery was effected from the pay of the petitioner.
As such, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the department.
6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length and have perused the record.
7. A perusal of the facts of the present case would show that it is admitted fact that the pay scale of the petitioner was revised w.e.f.
01.11.2006. In regard to wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted fact that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 4 fixed by the department. The wrong fixation of the pay of the petitioner was not on the basis of any mistake, concealment of facts or any fraud on the part of the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents-State that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that she was paid higher pay than her entitlement. In regard to recovery to be effected from the employee on the ground of excess payment is concerned, the State of Punjab vide instruction dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) relying on the judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) and others, 2015 (1) SCT 195 has held that the recovery of excess payment from the employee has to be regulated in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgment. Relevant extract of the instruction dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) is reproduced below:-
"2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its recent orders dated 18.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012 - State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Maih (White washer) and others, in Para No.12 of the aforesaid judgment dated 18.12.2014, Apex Court has made the following observations regarding recovery of wrongly paid benefits to employees of the state or its instrumentalities.
"It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it
4 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 5 may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summaries 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.
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 for outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
3. In future recovery of excess payment made to the employee is to be regulated as per ratio the judgment dated 18.12.2014.
5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 6
4. All recoveries required to be made shall be effected after following the due procedure.
5. The existing instructions dated 05.12.2012 on the subject shall be deemed to have been superseded to the extent of decision contained in this letter."
8. A perusal of the abovesaid instruction dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) would show that no recovery from the employee is permissible in the case of employees belonging to Class-III & IV service (or Group C & D service). It is admitted fact that the petitioner was working on the Class-III post. In light of the abovesaid instruction issued by the State of Punjab dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-5), it is held that no recovery could have been effected from the pay of the petitioner. On the abovesaid issue, reliance is also made on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2022 (2)SCT 722. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the 6 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 7 recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Reliance has also been made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Jogeswar Sahoo and others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and others, 2025(6) SLR 106.
The issue before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was in regard to effecting recovery of an amount extended to the appellants therein while they were in service. In the said judgment, it was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that as it did not reflect in the record that an excess payment was made to the appellants therein on account of any fraud or misrepresentation, as such, the recovery was found to be unsustainable.
The relevant extract from the abovesaid judgment in Jogeswar Sahoo case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"7. The issue falling for our consideration is not about the legality of the retrospective promotion and the financial 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 8 benefit granted to the appellants on 10.05.2017. The issue for consideration is whether recovery of the amount extended to the appellants while they were in service is justified after their retirement and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing.
8. The law in this regard has been settled by this Court in catena of judgments rendered time and again; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18: [1994(5) SLR 753 (SC)], Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521:
[1994(1) SLR 827 (SC)], Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416: [1996(4) SLR 450 (SC)] and V. angaram vs. Regional Jt. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139: [1997(4) SLR 311 (SC)] and in a recent decision in the matter of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2022) SCC online SC 536.
9. This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. It is held that such relief against the recovery is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.
10. In Thomas Daniel (supra), this Court has held thus in paras 10, 11, 12 and 13:
8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 9 "10. In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana1 this Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus: "5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation, the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs."
11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India2 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 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) 9 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 10 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 particular interpretation 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 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.
10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 11
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 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 Bihar3 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 11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 12 court observed that in general parlance, 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 what they 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 bona fide 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 whole confusion 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."
13. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their 12 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 13 entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus:
"8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.
xxxxxxxxx
18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 14
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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."
11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 15 opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable.
12. For the aforestated, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and in consequence the orders dated 12.09.2023 and 08.09.2023 by which the appellants were directed to deposit the excess drawn arrears are set aside."
10. Averting to the matter in hand, it is admitted fact that there was no mis-statement, concealment or fraud on the part of the petitioner in regard to wrong fixation of the pay in the case of the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents-State that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that she was getting higher pay than her entitlement or wrong principle of calculating the pay was applied or on the basis of particular interpretation of Rule which was subsequently found to be erroneous.
11. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, instruction issued by the State of Punjab dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases Rafiq Masih (white washer) (supra), Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra), it is held that no recovery can be effected from the pay of the petitioner.
15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 ::: CWP-27016-2023 (O&M) 16
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and impugned notice dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) and letter dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-4) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the pay of the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present writ petition till refund of the actual payment. Such payment shall be made to the petitioner within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE
23.12.2025
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 00:09:14 :::