DHARAM PAUL V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

CWP/8021/2010

AI Insights

The case involves Dharam Paul, the petitioner, who challenged the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Office of Commissioner, Income Tax, Jalandhar, regarding the recovery of amounts from his gratuity and the re-fixing of his pay. The Tribunal had previously allowed the recovery based on a Supreme Court judgment which permitted recovery if benefits were obtained through misrepresentation. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had agreed to the recovery after a show cause notice and personal hearing. The High Court, upon review, found that the increments were granted due to misunderstanding and not misrepresentation, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition and restrain further recovery.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724771 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others
• Laws Referred To: Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1995(5) SLR 753
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RENU BALA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMEET GOEL
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Mis-representation; Quashing order; Show cause notice; Re-fixing pay; Recovery from gratuity; Advance increments

Judgement Text

"Civil Writ Petition No. 8021 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8021 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 24, 2010 Dharam Paul .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Notes: 1) To be referred to the reporters or not? 2) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? <><><> M. M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P11) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) and order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P13) passed on the application for review of the said order of the Tribunal. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 11.10.2007 Civil Writ Petition No. 8021 of 2010 -2- (Annexure P6) and order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P8) passed by the Office of Commissioner, Income Tax, Jalandhar, re-fixing his pay for recovery of the amount from him respectively. The Tribunal has noticed the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1995(5) SLR 753, wherein it has been held that if any benefit has been obtained by making mis-representation, then such a benefit could be withdrawn. However, if the benefit has been given inadvertently without any active mis- representation on behalf of the employee, then no recovery can be effected. The Tribunal has distinguished the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court by stating that before making recovery from the gratuity of the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued to him and he had agreed to pay the amount of recovery. The Tribunal has also noticed that the petitioner did not dispute the aforesaid fact in the Original Application No.442/PB/2008. The Tribunal has declined the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the recovery sought to be effected from his gratuity. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the benefit of two advance increments granted to the petitioner was released on account of some misunderstanding and no allegation of mis-representation could be attributed to the petitioner. The issuance of show cause notice, grant of personal hearing and passing of the recovery order would not, itself, be sufficient to grant the relief as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from the petitioner. If any recovery of the amount has been effected, then the same be re-paid to the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 8021 of 2010 -3- However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to get such benefits in future and his pay has to be re-fixed by giving effect to withdrawal of two increments effectively. The refund of the amount would be made within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Disposed of accordingly. ( M. M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) May 24, 2010 JUDGE SRM "