Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 10 (HP)

PREM SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-01-01

KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. VIDE judgment dated 29.11.2011 passed in CWP No.4990 of 2010 E, titled as Mast Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, and other connected matters, this Court, based on the affidavit filed by Engineer in Chief, I&PH, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, had observed that Rs.76,48,478/ stood wrongly disbursed to 69 workers of the department as wages, even for the period they had not worked. While disposing of the petitions, this Court had directed recovery of the amount from the workers, who had availed and enjoyed such unmerited benefits and also issued the following directions: "There will be a direction to the Chief Secretary to conduct an enquiry as to how and why without any clarification from the Government, such amounts were paid. It shall also be inquired into as to whether such benefits have been paid on retrospective basis in other departments. Steps shall be taken to recover such amount in accordance with law from such workers and if not, recovery shall be made from the officers responsible for such irregular payment." 2. IN compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Mandi, has issued the impugned orders in all these petitions, which are similar in nature, seeking recovery of the amounts wrongly disbursed to the workers for the period for which they had never worked. Upon attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, petitioners were retired on different dates. However, due to subsequent developments, a decision was taken that only those employees, who stood regularized after 10.5.2001 would be made to retire upon attaining the age of 58 years and all other employees were to retire after completing 60 years of age. Under these circumstances, petitioners were recalled and made to join their remaining period of service until they reached the age of 60 years. But even prior to the said decision, some of the petitioners had already crossed this age and actually not worked for the period for which payments were disbursed to them. 3. SINCE the petitioners had actually not worked for the period for which payments were released, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Mast Ram (supra), orders of recovery now stand issued. We do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent State. Also there is no equity in favour of the petitioners. 3. SINCE the petitioners had actually not worked for the period for which payments were released, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Mast Ram (supra), orders of recovery now stand issued. We do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent State. Also there is no equity in favour of the petitioners. Not only that, petitioners cannot be allowed to unjustly enrich themselves for the period they had never worked. In fact some of the petitioners did not work as they had already acquired the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Significantly, petitioners had not challenged the order of their superannuation upon attaining the age of 58 years. The State of its own had decided to accord benefit of regularization and extend the age of superannuation upto 60 years. 4. HOWEVER, in the given facts and circumstances, we direct that the amounts in question shall be paid by the petitioner(s)/ recovered from them, in equal installments commencing from 1.1.2013 upto 31.12.2014. If the petitioners pay the amount within the aforesaid period, then no interest shall be charged by the respondent State. With the aforesaid directions, present petitions stand disposed of.