BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the action of respondents in ordering recovery of alleged excess wages paid to him for the period 31.03.2012 till 23.11.2012.

(2.) Facts

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that services of the petitioner were required to be converted into daily wage basis w.e.f. 31.3.2012 and not w.e.f. 23.11.2012. The amount in question was, therefore, legitimately due towards the petitioner and was accordingly paid to him. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event there had been no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner, therefore, in the facts of the case this amount could not be recovered from him. The amount in question was paid by the respondents themselves to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon (2015) 4 SCC 334 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others.