Ranjan Gogoi, C.J. - (1.) The State of Haryana is in appeal against the judgement and order dated 16.07.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 2475 of 2008. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner and has interfered with the decision of the respondents to recover from the monthly pension of the respondent/writ petitioner certain amounts which had been allegedly short paid by her. The facts lie within a short compass and may be usefully recapitulated at this stage.
(2.) The respondent/writ petitioner retired from the Health Department of the Government of Haryana on 31.12.1997. Her basic pension was fixed at Rs. 2326/- plus dearness allowance. After commuting a part of her pension, a sum of Rs. 1,00,254/- was paid to her and the commutation was sought to be recovered from the monthly pension @ Rs. 775/-. In the year 1999, following the revision of pay scale from a date when the respondent/writ petitioner was still in service, the basic pension of the respondent/writ petitioner was revised and another sum of Rs. 1,93,652/- was paid to her as commuted pension. Monthly deductions from the basic pension @ Rs. 775/- was continued to be made till the year 2007 when the respondent/writ petitioner was informed in writing by the State Bank of Patiala, Panchkula that an amount of Rs. 1,61,676/- was yet to be recovered from her and, therefore, the same would now be recovered by suitably enhancing the monthly recovery from pension to Rs. 2272/-. The State Bank of Patiala also informed the respondent/writ petitioner that an additional sum of Rs. 44,451/- was to be recovered from her on account of interest. The respondent/writ petitioner by a letter dated 20.08.2007 addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Panchkula (Annexure P2) gave her consent to the proposed recovery at the higher rate. However, in the year 2008, she had instituted the writ petition in question questioning the legitimacy of the proposed excess recovery. The learned Single Judge answered the issue in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner by coming to the conclusion that she was in no way guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in receiving the excess amount and the same was paid to her on account of a mistake in which she had no role to play. The learned Single Judge, therefore, took the view that the proposed recovery should not be permitted. Hence, interference was made with the impugned actions leading to the institution of the present appeal.
(3.) We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the pleadings of the parties including the several documents that have been brought on record. The facts and circumstances in which the recovery was proposed have already been taken note of. Elaborate arguments had been advanced by the respective parties on the strength of a Full Bench judgement of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3), PLR, 511 . While, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the present is a case which would be covered by the third category visualised in the judgement of the Full Bench, the learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has vehemently contended to the contrary. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified in interfering with the impugned actions and the appeal would not call for any other order(s). A reading of the Full Bench judgement in Budh Ram and others' (supra) would go to show that the two situations where recovery of amounts paid to a Government servant was held to be inequitable are, firstly, where the amount has been paid to the Government servant by mistake and the Government servant is not a party to such mistake. The second situation as contemplated in Budh Ram and others' case (supra) would arise where the amount has been paid in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Government servant. In either of the situations, according to the ratio of the judgement in Budh Ram and others' (supra), the money paid, even though in excess, would not be recoverable. However, a third category which falls neither in category 1 nor in category 2 was also visualised in Budh Ram and others' case (supra). The aforesaid category i.e. Category 3, however, has been held by the Bench itself to admit only a limited kind of cases. By way of illustration, an over payment of the salary payable to a Government employee has been cited as illustrative of the category of cases in which the third situation can be held to have arisen.;