Allowed

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Md, Uhbvnl & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2013CWP/15177/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition addressed the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 2013 where the petitioner challenged the withholding of his retiral benefits due to a later correction in pay fixation. The Court held that no fraud or misrepresentation existed and ordered the refund.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release the withheld sum of Rupees 49,466 along with interest at 6% per annum within two months.

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Md, Uhbvnl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 15177 of 2013

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

CWP No. 15177 of 2003

¶6

Date of Decision: November 19, 2013

Ashok Kumar Sharma

…..Petitioner

Vs.

MD, UHBVNL and another

¶11

…..Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents withholding a sum of Rs.49466/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on the ground that the said amount is required to be recovered on account of wrong fixation of pay from the petitioner as shown in LPC. The petitioner had sought an information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and he was informed the following reason for recovery:-

¶19

Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No. 15177 of 2013

¶21

[2]

¶22

“That the pay as on 16.1.2002 was fixed in the scale of 5500-150-6950 EB 150-9000 of Rs.6375/- as Asstt. by the then DDO is provisional and the same is subject to the pre-audit by the Sr.AO/PF. The Sr. AO/PF has intimated that the pay has fixed at higher stage due to the wrong fixations, so the pay was required to be fixed at Rs.6200/- instead of Rs.6375/- as on 16.1.2002 as the benefit of promotion as Asstt. has already given in modified 2^nd ACP scale of 5450-150-6950 EB 1508000 fixing the pay at Rs.5900/- as on 1.1.2000. So no benefit under Rule 4.4 (c) of Punjab CSR Volume I is required to be given and the deduction of the excess amount Rs.49466/- was required to be made therefore, it was done according to the Nigam instruction as per normal practice and procedure.” Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is liable to refund the abovesaid amount having wrongly drawn the same on the basis of wrong fixation of pay in the year 2002.

¶23

I have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and I am of the opinion that no fraud or misrepresentation has been attributed to the petitioner for drawing the abovesaid amount. It appears that the petitioner has been penalized for approaching this Court for grant of the interest on the delayed release of retiral benefits, on the basis of the detailed observations of the Chief Accounts Officers. In this context, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram

¶24

Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No. 15177 of 2013

¶26

[3]

¶27

and others Vs. State of Haryana and others , 2009 (3) SCT 333, Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others , (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttrakhand , Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30858 of 2011 holding that recoveries can be effected from an employee if he has committed fraud, misrepresentation or any other act of deception, otherwise he cannot be disqualified for any relief and equity. In the present case, the petitioner was not guilty of any misrepresentation, fraud or deception. He had received the benefits in the year 2002 i.e. 10 years prior to his date of retirement. He cannot be called upon to refund the payment already received.

¶28

The petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the sum of Rs.49466/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of two months after the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶29

November 19, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶30

Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Md, Uhbvnl & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Md, Uhbvnl & 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

Asha Thakur Vs Tejvir Singh

Sandeep Pilania Vs Abhey Singh Arya and Ors.

Tarinder Kaur Vs Anjali Bhawra and Ors.

Devinder Singh Jassar Vs K.B.S. Sidhu and Anr.

Sudha Vs Vikas Gupta

O.P. Verma and Ors. Vs Managing Director, Uhbvn and Ors.