Petitioner challenged refixation of pay in higher scale from 12.12.1973 and recovery of excess pay from 09.12.1968 to 11.12.1973. Relying on Rafiq Masih, court held no recovery permissible for employer's own miscalculation from a retired employee.
Impugned order upheld; respondents restrained from effecting recovery of excess payment.
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.
CWP-9415-1999
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
208 CWP-9415-1999 Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
Munish Kumari …Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Rohit Arya, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been filed, inter alia , seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.11.1998, Annexures P-6 & P-7, whereby the petitioner’s pay in the higher pay scale of ₹220-400 has been refixed with effect from 12.12.1973, instead of 09.12.1968, and pursuant thereto it has been ordered to recover the excess amount of payment wrongly given to her from 09.12.1968 to 11.12.1973.
PAYAL the reason for withdrawing the benefit. The impugned order itself establishes 2024.08.12 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-9415-1999 -2-
that it is a case of wrong calculation by the respondents themselves, for which the petitioner cannot be penalized by effecting recovery of the amount already paid. Law in this regard is already well settled by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 29.07.2024 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
PAYAL 2024.08.12 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
1 issue framed by the court
Whether recovery of excess pay paid due to the employer's own wrong calculation can be effected from a superannuated employee who did not misrepresent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and othersRelied on
(2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Munish Kumari
State of Haryana
Tribhuvan Dahiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
