The Court dismissed the State's writ petition seeking recovery of excess payment made to an employee. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that recovery was iniquitous where the employee was unaware of the excess and no fraud was committed.
Impugned notice for recovery of excess payment quashed; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 1034 of 2017-D
Date of Decision: May 24, 2017
The State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Petitioners.
Versus Shri Mehboob Ali ...Respondent. Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.J.K. Verma & Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the petitioner.
For the Respondent: Nemo for the respondent.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral).
Facts in issue, succinctly stand extracted by the Tribunal, in the following words:
“The applicant was engaged as daily wage Receptionist during the year 1988 in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Division Kasauli, Distt. Solan. He had completed 10 years service and was conferred work charge status with effect from 1.1.1998, in the pay scale of Rs.3120-
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
3
paid in excess, not to be as a result of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, by relying upon the decision rendered by the apex Court in State of Punjab & others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., AIR 2015 SC 696, Tribunal quashed the impugned notice of recovery.
4
of payment of any excess amount till such time it was sought to be recovered with the issuance of notice (Annexure P-1). The recovery was sought to be effected on the basis of administrative instructions as also decision rendered by the apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, AIR 1998 SC 2819, restricting the release of arrears only for a period of three years. But then subsequently the said decision stands clarified and the directions modified.
5
would far overweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. This we say so in view of the facts stated herein above.
Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.
May 24, 2017
(Purohit)
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the excess amount disbursed to a daily wage receptionist due to administrative error could be recovered from him given the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
Whether the doctrine of substantive equity prevents the recovery of excess payment from an employee who was unaware of the overpayment at the time it was disbursed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq MasihApplied¶18
State of Punjab & others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., AIR 2015 SC 696 · Who else cites this
High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev SinghReferred¶19
High Court of Punjab & Haryana & others vs. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523 · Who else cites this
Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal PradeshReferred¶22
Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, AIR 1998 SC 2819 · Who else cites this
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
Shri Mehboob Ali
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
