Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 19305 of 2010 and 7895 of 2012, as the issue raised therein is common. However, the facts have been extracted from C.W.P. No. 19305 of 2010. The petitioners, who are working/retired as teachers in different schools, have filed the present petitions impugning the orders vide which the recovery of the house rent allowance allegedly excess paid earlier is sought to be made.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the recovery is sought to be made, without issuing even any show cause notice. Still further it was submitted that in the process of payment of amount in question, the petitioners did not mislead any authority, hence, it is harsh on the petitioners to ask them to pay the amount, in some cases after the petitioners had retired, whereas in some cases during their service but after long duration. In support of the plea, reliance has been placed upon judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others,, 2009(3) S.C.T. 333 and of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, : 2012 (4) S.C.T. 227. However, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the amount which was paid to the petitioners was not payable in terms of the instructions issued by the Government, rather it was a wrong payment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that no doubt, show cause notice was not issued to the petitioners, however, the fact remains that it is not in dispute that the amount which was paid to the petitioners was not due to them. There was some error in payment. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 17881 of 2008 - U.T. Chandigarh and others v. Gurcharan Singh and another, decided on 1.11.2013, the submission is that it is a question of accounting. Once later on it was found that something was wrongly paid to the petitioners, as a matter of settlement of accounts, the amount can very well be recovered. The employees also come to the Court later on seeking the relief that some benefits due to them at any earlier point of time was not paid. It is the question of balancing the equities, hence, no case for interference is made out.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.;