Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harabhajan Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 September, 2010
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.15633 of 2010
Date of Decision: September 01, 2010
Harabhajan Ram
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for
the petitioner(s).
. . .
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/PPO letter dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) to the extent it directs recovery from Death Cum Retirement Gratuity payable to the petitioner. Recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner is on account of the fact that proficiency step up increment has been withdrawn.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that refixation of pay is accepted by CWP No.15633 of 2010 [2] the petitioner. Petitioner did not enable initial fixation of pay/grant of increment by way of playing fraud or misrepresenting facts. In such circumstances, the respondents have no right to 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 petitioner further states that the petitioner would be sat- isfied 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 others), decided on 2.3.2010.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Pun- jab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the re- spondents.
6. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the matter be disposed of at this stage itself, in view of peculiar facts and circum- stances of the case.
CWP No.15633 of 2010 [3]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent any fact so as to take undue advantage/monetary benefits from the respondents. In such circumstances, the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra) and, therefore, the matter be de- cided accordingly.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that the respondents have not been able to verify whether the petitioner has played fraud or not and, therefore, the facts need to be verified. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, however, states that the matter be dis- posed of in terms of judgment rendered in Kaur Chand's case (supra).
9. I have considered the issue.
10. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration 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- 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 CWP No.15633 of 2010 [4] 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."
11. Relying on Budh Ram's case (supra), this Court in Kaur Chand's case (supra), has held in the fol- lowing 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.15633 of 2010 [5] riod of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
12. In view of the common prayer of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed in limited 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)
September 01, 2010 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?