Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 11 (PNJ)

Jai Krishan Verma v. Chief Executive Officer

2005-01-05

HEMANT GUPTA

body2005
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 and that the order dated 15.4.1997 reducing his pay scale to Rs. 16450-2900 and for recovery of excess amount of Rs. 45488/- is wrong, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to get pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 since 17.11.1990 and that his pay has been rightly fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 but the learned trial Court found that the amount of Rs. 45,488/- paid to the plaintiff on account of higher pay scale cannot be allowed to be recovered. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India V/s. M. Bhaskar and Ors., 1996(4) Service Cases Today 56. However, in appeal, relying upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court reported as Sardari Lal V/s. State of Haryana and Ors., A.I.R. 1970 Punjab & Haryana 241, as well as the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as Ved Pal Mor V/s. State of Haryana and Ors., 1998(4) Recent Services Judgments 532, the learned first Appellate Court set aside the said part of the decree. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has vehemently argued that the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 was granted to the plaintiff. The said pay scale was granted not on the basis of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, the same cannot be ordered to be recovered from the plaintiff and the learned trial Court rightly set aside the said part of the order passed by the department. He has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as Sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Service Cases Today 668 and Union of India V/s. M. Bhaskar and Ors., 1996(4) Service Cases Today 56. He has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as Sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Service Cases Today 668 and Union of India V/s. M. Bhaskar and Ors., 1996(4) Service Cases Today 56. Reference was also made to the directions given in number of judgments delivered by the Division Bench of this Court that if financial benefit has been granted to an employee, not on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation, the same cannot be recovered. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Sunder Lal and Ors. V/s. The State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1970 Punjab & Haryana 241, wherein it has been held that if certain benefit has been granted to an employee on the basis of bona fide mistake, the State Government is competent to rectify the said mistake. Reliance is also placed upon Division Bench of this Court in case reported as Ranjit Singh IPS V/s. The President of India and Ors., 1971 Services Law Reporter 561, wherein it has been held that every Administrative Authority has an inherent right to rectify its own mistake unless there is some specific provision of law which prohibits such course. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as Bishan Chand V/s. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors., 1997(4) Recent Services Judgments 500, wherein the order of recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner was upheld and that the respondents were not found to perpetuate the wrong. They were entitled to rectify the mistake. Thus, it cannot be held that the respondents have acted illegally. 6. Apart from the said judgments, reliance is also placed upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court in case reported as Union of India and Ors. V/s. Smt. Sujatha Vedachalam and Anr., 2000(3) Recent Services Judgments 47, wherein recovery of excess pay was ordered to be spread over for fifteen years or till the date of retirement whichever is earlier. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have also referred to Section 72 of the Contract Act which provides, "A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it." 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have also referred to Section 72 of the Contract Act which provides, "A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it." 8. On the basis of such provisions of law, reliance was placed upon judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Mahabir Kishore and Ors. V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 313; K.S. Satyanarayana V/s. V.R. Narayana Rao, AIR 1999 SC 2544; and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors., 1997 5 SCC 536, while applying the principles of unjust enrichment. 9. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties and the divergent views expressed, 1 am of the opinion that the question "whether an employee is liable to refund the financial benefits paid to him under mistake even if there is no fraud or misrepresentation in claiming such benefits" arise frequently in large of cases and requires to be authoritatively decided by a larger Bench. The papers of this case be placed before Hon ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.