HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA & ORS. versus JAGDEV SINGH

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 29-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[20 I 6] 6 S.C.R. 781 
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
JAGDEV SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 3500 of2006) 
JULY29,2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) 
Service Law - Salary - Excess payment - Recovery in terms 
of undertaking -
Respondent availed revised pay scale and also 
gave undertaking under Pay Rules to refund any excess payment -
Pay rules further revised - Recovery action against respondent for 
adjustment of excess payment - Propriety of - Held: While opting 
for the benefit of revised pay scale, respondent was clearly on notice 
of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an 
adjustment of ,the excess payment made - Respondent had 
specifically furnished an undertaking to this effect while opting for 
revised pay scale, thus was bound by it - Therefore, plea that 
recovery from retired employees is impermissible, rejected - Recovery 
to be made in reasonable instalments - Judiciary - Haryana Civil 
Service (Judicial Branch) and Haryana Superior Judicial Service 
Revised Pay Rules 2001 - Haryana Civil Sen1ices (Judicial Branch) 
and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2003. 
Respondent, a judicial officer, availed revised pay scale with 
effect from 7.1.2000 and also gave an undertaking, under the 
Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and Haryana Superior 
Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2001 to refund any excess 
payment if so demanded subsequently. He was compulsorily 
retired from service on 12.2.2003. Pay scale was again revised, 
w.e.f. 1.1.1996, vide Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and 
Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2003 
notified on 7.5.2003. Subsequently, exercise was undertaken for 
adjustment of the excess payment made following notification of 
Revised Pay Rules of 2003. Recovery letter was served on the 
Respondent. The respondent challenged the action of recovery 
in writ proceedings u/Art. 226. The petition was allowed by the 
781 
B. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
High Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. When the Respondent opted for the revised pay 
scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be 
liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter 
affidavit filed by the Respondent, this position was specifically 
admitted. When the rules were revised and notified on 7 May 
2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the 
Respondent. The excess payment was sought to be recovered in 
terms of the undertaking. [Para 8) [784-E-F] 
2.1 The submission that a payment made in excess cannot 
be recovered from a retired employee would have no application 
to a situation as the present where an undertaking was specifically 
furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially 
revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in 
excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit 
of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of 
the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an 
adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made. [Para 9] [784-G; 
785-A) 
2.2 The principle that recovery from retired employees 
would be impermissible in law cannot apply to a situation as in 
the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the 
payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on 
notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would 
be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking 
while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the 
undertaking. The recovery be made in reasonable equated 
monthly instalments spread over a period of two years. [Para 11 
and 12) (785-F-G; 786-A] 
State of Punjab & Ors etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 
etc. (2015) 4 sec 334 - held inapplicable. 
Case Law Reference 
(2015) 4 sec 334 
held inapplicable 
Para 11 
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA & ORS. v. 
783. 
JAGDEV SINGH 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 
A 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 3999 of 2005. 
Manjit Singh Sr. Adv., Rahu1 Gupta, Adv. for the Appellants. 
B 
Vinod Sharma, Arun Singh, S. K. Visen, Prem Malhotra, Advs. 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana allowed, by its judg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.