GURDIP KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order of recovery, whereby respondents sought to recover the disputed amount from the family pension of the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, two separate written statements were filed. One on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, whereas a separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 6.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither there was any scope of misrepresentation at the hands of the petitioner nor it was even the allegation against her, levelled by any of the respondent authorities. In such a situation, respondent authorities were not entitled to recover the disputed amount from the family pension of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Unniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 4 SCT 277, State of Punjab and others v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24607 of 2010), decided on 2.8.2013 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 3 SCT 333. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the instant writ petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and 6 submit that since the excess payment was made to the petitioner because of mistake, respondents authorities were entitled to rectify that mistake, by recovering the excess amount paid to the petitioner. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.