High Court dismissed the State's appeal against a Single Judge's order quashing a recovery notice. The Court held that recovering excess payments from employees who were not aware of the excess and contributed to their own regularization via litigation was iniquitous and without merit.
Appeal dismissed; recovery notice quashed; pending applications disposed.
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
LPA No. 69 of 2017
Date of Decision: July 26, 2017
State of H.P. & others …Appellants. Versus Sh. Sita Ram & another ...Respondents. 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 Appellants: Mr. M.A. Khan & Mr.Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellants-State.
For the Respondents: Nemo for the respondents.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral).
Facts in issue, succinctly stand extracted by the learned Single Judge, in the following words:
“Petitioner No.1 was engaged on daily wage basis on 1.1.1989 and petitioner No.2 was engaged on 1.1.1990. Though the petitioners had completed more than ten years service but were not regularized as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case. They approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5459/2011. It was disposed of on 19.7.2011. In
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
sequel to the directions issued by this Court, petitioners were conferred with work charge status with effect from 1.1.1999 and 1.1.2000, respectively and they were regularized on 15.1.2003 and 16.1.2003. Fact of the matter is that petitioner No.1 had completed ten years on 31.12.1998 and petitioner No.2 on 31.12.1999. Petitioners were also paid arrears amounting to Rs.2,37,351 and Rs. 1,75,394/-, respectively. Petitioners have now been served with a recovery notice dated 13.8.2013. It is specifically averred in reply that decision has been taken to effect recovery of arrears from the petitioners on the basis of letters dated 1.3.2013 and 8.3.2013, respectively.”
2,37,351 and 1,75,394/-, respectively stood disbursed to the petitioners (respondents herein).3
Washer) etc., AIR 2015 SC 696, learned Single Judge quashed the impugned notice of recovery.
4
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
Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, present apeal, devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.
July 26, 2017 (Sandeep Sharma), (Purohit) Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether arrears of pay disbursed to regularized employees can be recovered from them where no fraud or misrepresentation was committed.
Whether recovery of excess payments is iniquitous or arbitrary when employees were not notified about the excess amount at the time of disbursement.
Whether the distinction in Jagdev Singh affects the outcome where employees were not aware of their entitlement limits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mool Raj UpadhyayReferred¶10
Mool Raj Upadhyay's case
State of Punjab vs. Rafiq MasihRelied on¶15
State of Punjab & others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., AIR 2015 SC 696 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev SinghDistinguished¶18
High Court of Punjab & Haryana & others vs. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523 · Who else cites this
Jai Dev GuptaReferred¶19
Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, AIR 1998 SC 2819 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
State of H.P. & others
Sh. Sita Ram & another
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court