Cop’s widow paid ₹ 17 lakh in excess; HC quashes Haryana order on recovery

The high court bench of justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said that there is no allegation of any misrepresentation on part of the petitioner woman so as to receive the excess amount which was paid to by the respondents

: The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed a Haryana government order for the recovery of ₹ 17.45 lakh paid in excess to a cop’s widow from the family pension of the woman.

Cop’s widow paid ₹ 17 lakh in excess; HC quashes Haryana order on recovery

The high court bench of justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said that there is no allegation of any misrepresentation on part of the petitioner woman so as to receive the excess amount which was paid to by the respondents.

“Once, there is no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner at the time of receiving of the benefit and the benefit was received in accordance with the order passed, no recovery can be made,” the bench added.

The court not only quashed the recovery order, but also directed that any amount recovered in view of this order be given back within two months.

The petitioner, Shiksha Devi from Kaithal, is wife of a head constable, who died in a road accident on July 1, 2007. Keeping in view the Haryana Compassionate Financial Assistance Scheme- 2006, the woman became entitled for the grant of the benefit under 2006 scheme and an order was passed by the respondents on August 3, 2008, allowing the woman the benefit of last pay drawn by the deceased husband for a period of 11 years and 13 days (upto the date on which the husband would have retired since his death). She was paid this amount and subsequently got the family pension.

Later, the department realised that the woman was only entitled for the benefit for a period of seven years and not 11. Hence, it sought recovery of the excess payment from the pensionary benefits.

The department in the high court had argued that the excess payment can be recovered keeping in view the fact that the same is public money and also cited an undertaking of the year 2009 from the petitioner.

The court observed that in the case, the order was passed inadvertently and the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. The woman was paid the amount as per the order passed by themselves. There is no allegation of any misrepresentation on her part to receive the excess amount. One undertaking in this regard was being cited for 2009. There was no undertaking at the said stage so as to conclude that the petitioner had undertook that she would be bound to refund the excess.

The court also referred to a SC judgment as per which once a benefit has been given and the beneficiary continued to receive the same for a period of five years, no recovery can be made. It also came before the court that order in question was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner woman.