PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.

(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.