Allowed

Lajja Ram v. U.H.B.V.N.L. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Oct 2013CWP/20136/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition for quashing a recovery order from the petitioner's death-cum-retirement gratuity. It held that recovery cannot be effected from pensionary benefits without an opportunity of hearing and where no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is established.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; order dated 9.4.2012 is set aside and sum of ₹76,751/- is to be released with interest.

Lajja Ram Vs U.H.B.V.N.L. and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.10.26 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CWP-20136-2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-20136-2012 (O&M) Decided on: October 23, 2013.

Lajja Ram

..... Petitioner

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

PRESENT Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Sudhir Hooda, Advocate, for respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner through the instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has sought quashing of order dated 9.4.2012 Annexure P2, to the extent of recovery of `76,751/- out of death-cum-retirement gratuity of the petitioner without any charge sheet or enquiry.

¶15

In the written statement, the respondents have taken up a plea that a sum of `76,751/- has been deducted from the death-cum-retirement gratuity on account of recoveries as per order of Senior Accounts Officer dated 9.4.2012. The said recoveries pertain to some breakages and excess payment made to the petitioner at the time when he was working as Regular Store Mate in the year 1980 to 1983. It has been averred in the written statement that while checking the record at the time of his retirement, the

¶16

¶17

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.10.26 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-20136-2012 (O&M)

¶19

recovery of the above said amount was found outstanding against his name. The said recovery has come to the notice of the respondents at the time of retirement of the petitioner and that for recovering the said amount neither any chargesheet was required nor any notice was required to be given to the petitioner. It is claimed by the respondents that while issuing no due certificate at the time of retirement the said amount was shown to be due for recovery.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the amount of GPF, leave encashment and pension etc. has already been released to the petitioner. The question which is required to be determined in the present case is whether the respondents can recover a sum of `76,751/- on the basis of audit objection from the death-cum-retirement gratuity. The right of the respondents to make recoveries from the retiral benefits is no more res integra in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in case Budh Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (4) RSJ 110 , wherein it has been held that any benefit received or obtained by an employee by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or any other act of deception would disentitle him to retain the said benefit.

¶21

The instant writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing before recovering the above said amount from the pensionary benefits. The petitioner cannot be held liable for any excess amount paid to him in view of the ratio of Full Bench

¶22

¶23

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.10.26 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-20136-2012 (O&M)

¶25

judgment of this Court in case Budh Ram (supra) and the judgments 2009 (2) R.S.J. 416 (Syed Abdul Qadir & others Vs. State of Bihar & others), 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 18 (Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana), 1994(2) SCC 521 (Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India), 1996(4) SCC 416 (Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar), 1997 (6) SCC 139 (V.Ganga Ram Vs. Regional Jt. Director), 2006(11) SCC 709 (Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Government of India), 2006(11) SCC 492 (Purshottam Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar), 2006 (8) SCC 647 (Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh) and 2000(10) SCC 99 (Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Bijay Bahadur) , holding that if excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, the recoveries cannot be effected. The case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of above said judgments mentioned in case Ram Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, CWP No.14767-2012, decided on 3.9.2013.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 9.4.2012

¶27

Annexure P2, to the extent of recovery of 76,751/- out of deathcum-retirement gratuity of the petitioner, is set side. The sum of 76,751/- is ordered to be released to the petitioner within a period of two months with interest calculated @ 6 per cent per annum w.e.f. 31.1.2011.

¶28

October 23, 2013. rka

¶29

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

¶30

Lajja Ram v. U.H.B.V.N.L. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lajja Ram v. U.H.B.V.N.L. and Ors.

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

Surinder K. Gupta Vs N.S. Kang and Ors.

Amrik Singh & Ors. Vs Sumedh Singh Saini & Ors.

Lakhu Raj @ Lehu Vs Suresh Dangi

Harbhajan Singh and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Pohap Singh Vs Shekhar Vidyarthi & Anr.

Jaswant Kaur Vs Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr.