Allowed

Vijay Rani Pasrija v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2023CWP/4739/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the action of the respondent in recovering excess pension from a retired petitioner. Relying on Rafiq Masih, the court held that recovery after retirement is impermissible and ordered the refund of amounts already deducted.

What did the court decide?

Recovery made from petitioner after re-fixing pension and after retirement is not permissible; amount recovered is to be refunded within three months.

Vijay Rani Pasrija Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

217

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP NO.4739 of 2017 Date of Decision: 19.01.2023

¶4

Vijay Rani

¶5

.............Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others ................Respondents

¶8

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶9

Present Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶10

¶11

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the action of the respondent in reducing the pension of the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2012 and effecting recovery after retirement of the petitioner in utter violation of law laid down in State of Punjab

¶13

and others v. State of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015(4)

¶14

SCC 334 on the pretext of wrong fixation of date of increment on granting Super Selection Grade on 01.05.2000.

¶15

During course of arguments, the grievance of the petitioner is that the stand of the respondent in reducing the pension of the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2012 on account of wrong

¶16

fixation of date of increment on granting Super Selection Grade MAMTA 2023.01.27 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP NO.4739 of 2017 2

¶18

on 01.05.2000 may be a correct step but payment of excess amount on wrong fixation of the date of increment cannot be recovered after the retirement of the petitioner in view of Rafiq Masih's case (supra) particularly when there was no such undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of receiving the excess amount.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also admitted that on reducing the pension of the petitioner the excess amount paid has been recovered by means of fixing instalments and those instalments have been recovered from the reduced pension of the petitioner. In view of this position, the amount already recovered from the petitioner is liable to be refunded back to the petitioner.

¶20

There is no dispute on factual matrix that there was a wrong fixation of date of increment on granting Super Selection Grade on 01.05.2000 and accordingly the amount was paid. Subsequently, the pension was reduced and the excessive amount paid to the petitioner was recovered in the form of instalments from the reduced pension. The grievance of the petitioner is that atleast petitioner is entitled to recover the amount so recovered from the reduced pension of the petitioner. The amount, if any, recovered after the retirement of the petitioner is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. There is no dispute on factual matrix of the case; admittedly there was no

¶21

MAMTA 2023.01.27 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP NO.4739 of 2017

¶23

¶24

undertaking executed by the petitioner at the time of receiving excess amount based on wrong fixation of date of increment on grant of Super Selection Grade.

¶25

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, recovery, if any, made from the petitioner after re-fixing the pension and that too after retirement is not permissible in view of Rafiq Masih's case (supra) and the said amount, if recovered, is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

Disposed of.

¶27

19.01.2023

¶28

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE

¶29

mamta

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶31

MAMTA 2023.01.27 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vijay Rani Pasrija v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Rani Pasrija v. State of Haryana 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

Raj Rani Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Naveen Kumar Vs the Transport Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Raj Bala Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurshawinder Singh Brar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Parminder Singh Alias Tinder Vs State of Haryana

Satyawan Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Others