Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indra vs State Of Punjab & Others on 16 December, 2010
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.22384 of 2010
Date of Decision: December 16, 2010
Indra
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) to the extent it directs recovery from the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that refixation of pay is CWP No.22384 of 2010 [2] accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresent facts to get monetary benefits. The respondents might have committed an error in fixing the pay of the petitioner initially, however, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot effect recovery in view of 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, decided on 22.5.2009) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511.
3. Learned counsel for the peti-
tioner further states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the petition is disposed of in terms of decision of this Court rendered in CWP 697 of 2010 (Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and oth- ers), decided on 2.3.2010.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate Gen- eral, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents.
CWP No.22384 of 2010 [3]
6. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the matter be disposed of at this stage itself, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the respondents have not been able to verify whether the petitioner has played fraud or not. In regard to recovery, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to cite any judgment contrary to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, states that pay of the petitioner had been wrongly fixed and therefore, the respondents have a right to recover the additional benefits released to the petitioner.
8. I have considered the issue.
9. The following needs to be ex-
tracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for considera- tion of the issue raised in this petition:-
"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-CWP No.22384 of 2010 [4]
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- 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."
10. Relying on Budh Ram's case (supra), this Court in Kaur Chand's case (supra), has held in the following terms:-
"(6). Following the dictum in Budh Ram's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed in part; the action of the respon-
dents in ordering recovery of the excess payments received by the petitioner as a result of Stepping-up of his pay or grant of ACP is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of his pay and conse- quential re-determination of the retiral benefits are upheld. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (7). Since the respondents have not filed any counter-re- ply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepre- sented the facts and/order played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a pe- CWP No.22384 of 2010 [5] riod of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
11. In view of the fact that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by judgment rendered in Kaur Chand's case (supra), this petition is allowed in the same terms, in terms of the judgment dated 2.3.2010 rendered in CWP 697 of 2010 (Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and others), portion whereof has been extracted above.
(AJAI LAMBA)
December 16, 2010 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?