KAMLESH THAPA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through an order borne in Annexure A-3, the earlier thereto pay fixation of the writ petitioner became rectified, and, thereafter through Annexure A-4, an order for recovery of excess payment towards pay hence become strived. Consequently, the writ petitioner casts a challenge both upon Annexure A-3, and, consequent therewith order of recovery as borne in Annexure A-4.

(2.) The respondents contend that the revision of pay of the writ petitioner as made through Annexure A-3, and, onsequent therewith order of recovery as borne in Annexure A-4 are completely valid, as the earlier thereto order fixing pay of the writ petitioner was made, upon misinterpretation of Rule 7 of Pay Rules 1998, rather prohibiting the awarding of two bunching increments instead of one increment as bunching benefit to the writ petitioner.

(3.) Since in a verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3351-3354 of 2003 titled as Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors versus State of Bihar & others, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 28 thereof, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter, has made expostulations of law, that unless (a) excess payments are made to a payee on account of misrepresentation or fraud practiced by the latter, thereupon excess payment are recoverable from the payee (b) however when excess payment, as, made to the payee rather are sequel of an erroneous interpretation of relevant Rules by the establishment concerned, and also, when the payee concerned has retired or is at the verge of retirement, thereupon, recovery(s) towards excess payment are not amenable to be effectuated from the payee.