Sheela Devi vs State Of Haryana & Others on 11 May, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sheela Devi vs State Of Haryana & Others on 11 May, 2011

Bench: Ajai Lamba

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH




                                       Civil Writ Petition No.3037 of 2006
                                             Date of Decision: May 11, 2011



Sheela Devi

                                                        .....PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS



State of Haryana & others
                                                      .....RESPONDENT(S)



                            .      .      .



CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -         Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy
                   Advocate General, Haryana.


                             .     .      .


AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing orders Annexure P-2 and P-3 dated 27.1.2006 and 3.4.2006. Vide the impugned orders, the petitioner has been informed that her pay has been refixed, one increment has been withdrawn, and recovery is required to be effected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner challenges the impugned orders only in context of CWP No.3037 of 2006 [2] recovery. In regard to withdrawal of increment(s), decision of the respondents is accepted. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent facts so as to take monetary benefits. In such circumstances, the case is covered by law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511.

3. Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been filed. It has not been suggested in the reply that petitioner played fraud or misrepresented facts. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute that case is covered by Budh Ram's case (supra).

4. I have considered the issue.

5. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this peti- tion:-

"It is in the light of the above pronouncement, no longer open to the authorities granting the benefits, no matter er- roneously, to contend that even when the employee con- cerned was not at fault and was not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the authorities, they are enti- tled to recover the benefit that has been received by the employee on the basis of any such erroneous grant. We say so primarily because if the employee is not responsible for the erroneous grant of benefit to him/her, it would induce in him the belief that the same was indeed due and pay- able. Acting on that belief the employee would, as any other person placed in his position arrange his affairs ac- cordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be with- drawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules. Having induced that belief in the employee and made him change his position and arrange his affairs in a manner that he would not otherwise have done, it would be unfair, inequitable and harsh for the Government to di-

CWP No.3037 of 2006 [3]

rect recovery of the excess amount simply because on a true and correct interpretation of the rules, such a benefit was not due. It does not require much imagination to say that additional monetary benefits going to an employee may not always result in accumulation of his resources and savings. Such a benefit may often be utilized on smaller luxuries of life which the employee and his family may not have been able to afford had the benefit not been extended to him. The employees can well argue that if it was known to them that the additional benefit is only temporary and would be recovered back from them, they would not have committed themselves to any additional expenditure in their daily affairs and would have cut their coat according to their cloth. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or appli- cation of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions have not in any way contributed to such erroneous inter- pretation nor have they committed any fraud, misrepresen- tation, deception to obtain the grant of such benefit, the benefit so extended may be stopped for the future, but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them."

6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner. In the meantime, in the interregnum period if any recovery has been effected, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The action of the respondents in regard refixation of pay, however, is maintained.

                                                                   (AJAI LAMBA)
May 11, 2011                                                          JUDGE
avin




1.     To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No.3037 of 2006 [4]

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court