Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Vijay Laxmi Gulta vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 March, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No.290 of 2010.doc -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.290 of 2010
Date of Decision: 02.03.2010
****
Dr. (Mrs.) Vijay Laxmi Gulta . . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab
*****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioner joined as a Medical Officer in the Department of Medical Education and Research, Government of Punjab on 07.04.1975. She has now retired from service. She seeks quashing of the recovery orders issued as a result of withdrawal of the benefit of ACP earlier granted to her. (2). While restricting her challenge qua the 'recovery' only, the petitioner's case is that she never misrepresented the facts nor played any fraud or used deceptive means to secure any monetary gain for herself, CWP No.290 of 2010.doc -2- therefore, even if the action of Stepping-up of her pay was erroneous or contrary to Rules/Instructions, no recovery of the resultant emoluments already paid to her can be effected retrospectively.
(3). The respondents have not filed any counter-
reply/affidavit and are unable to admit or deny as to whether or not the petitioner misled the authorities to seek Step-up of her pay and bring at par with her alleged juniors.
(4). At the same time and in the absence of any material to the contrary, the petitioner appear to be justified in relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009) wherein it is ruled that the employee who was not guilty of misrepresentation, fraud or deception while receiving any monetary gain under the mistake of the functionary of the State Government, deserves to be dealt with independently and cannot be called upon to refund to the Government the undeserved payment that he/she has already received.
(5). In such like cases, the Full Bench concluded that :-
"It is in the light of the above pronouncement, no longer open to the authorities granting the CWP No.290 of 2010.doc -3- benefits, no matter erroneously, to contend that even when the employee concerned was not at fault and was not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the authorities, they are entitled 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 payable. Acting on that belief the employee would, as any other person placed in his position arrange his affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn 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 direct 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 CWP No.290 of 2010.doc -4- that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions have not in any way contributed to such erroneous interpretation nor have they committed any fraud, misrepresentation, 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). For the reasons assigned in Budh Ram's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed in part; the action of the respondents in ordering recovery of the excess payments received by the petitioner as a result of Stepping-up of her pay is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of her pay and consequential re-determination of the retiral benefits is upheld. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to her within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Since the respondents have not filed any counter-
reply/affidavit, it is clarified that if, on verification of the records, it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or had obtained the monetary benefits through fraud or deception, the respondents shall be at liberty to seek CWP No.290 of 2010.doc -5- review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(8). Ordered accordingly.
(9). Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
02.03.2010
vishal shonkar