Allowed

R,K.Arora v. Pu. Plann. Dev. Author. Puda and Anr,.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2011CWP/1488/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders directing the recovery of excess salary erroneously paid to the petitioner during her deputation. The High Court examined whether such recovery was permissible without evidence of fraud or misleading conduct by the employee.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22.09.2008 ordering recovery was quashed; respondents directed to refund deducted amount within three months with 7% per annum interest if delayed.

R,K.Arora Vs Pu. Plann. Dev… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.1488 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.02.2011

¶4

¶5

Dr.(Smt.) RK Arora . . . . Petitioner

¶6

VS.

¶7

Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority & Ors.

¶8

. . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Advocate for respondents No.1&2

¶18

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 01.06.2004; 08.08.2006; 15.05.2008; 15.07.2008; and 22.09.2008; (Annexures P5, P10, P14, P16 & P17, respectively) whereby a sum of Rs.3,40,246/- is sought to be recovered from her as per the revised pay fixation and on account of the alleged excess salary paid to her w.e.f. 03.01.2002 to 31.03.2008. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P18) vide which her appeal against the recovery order(s) has been turned down.

¶22

2 –

¶23

CWP No.1488 of 2009.doc

¶24

(2). Respondents No.1&2 have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that the petitioner’s pay was erroneously fixed and the competent authority is well within its right to rectify the mistake and effect the consequential recovery.

¶25

(3).

¶26

Suffice it to mention here that the petitioner while working as a Director, Slums & JJ, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh was taken on deputation by the respondent Punjab Housing Board (now PUDA) on deputation as General Manager on 11.02.1993. The parent organization of the petitioner placed her in the Selection Grade of Rs.14500-18000 in the year 1994 and her pay was accordingly fixed. The post of General Manager occupied by the petitioner on deputation was also re-designated as Additional Chief Administrator in the year 1997 and she continued to work against the said post in the existing pay scale. It appears that the petitioner, at one point of time, was absorbed as the Additional Chief Administrator vide order dated 07.02.2002 (Annexure P1) which was later on rescinded/recalled vide show cause notice dated 15.04.2004 (Annexure P2). She was thereafter repatriated on 31.03.2008 and she joined her parent Department. During the period when the petitioner

¶27

3 –

¶28

CWP No.1488 of 2009.doc

¶29

continued to serve the respondents as an Additional Chief Administrator and after she was repatriated, the impugned recovery order has been passed on the plea that her pay, while she was serving the respondents as Additional Chief Administrator was erroneously fixed and the respondents are entitled to effect recovery of the excess salary from her.

¶30

(4).

¶31

The respondents in the written statement nowhere averred that the petitioners misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). That being so, in my considered view, no recovery can be allowed to be effected from her in view of the exceptions laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 where authorities have been restrained from effecting recovery for the amount paid to her though erroneously.

¶32

(5).

¶33

These principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440 ,

¶34

(6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure P17) to the extent ordering recovery from the petitioner is hereby

¶35

4 –

¶36

CWP No.1488 of 2009.doc

¶37

quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount if any already deducted from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which she shall be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. on the amount.

¶38

(7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶39

15.02.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

R,K.Arora v. Pu. Plann. Dev. Author. Puda and Anr,.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R,K.Arora v. Pu. Plann. Dev. Author. Puda and Anr,.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kamal Kumar Vs Authorised Officer, LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Manohar Singh Vs P S E B and Ors.

Kuldip Kumar Vs Punjab Police Housing Corporation

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab etc.