IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9683 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: September 02, 2009 Narpat Rai .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose CWP No. 9683 of 2009 titled Narpat Rai Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 12927 of 2009 titled Bhag Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 9653 of 2009 titled Karnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 9730 of 2009 titled Ram Naresh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 11931 of 2009 titled Moti Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 11933 of 2009 titled Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Punjab and Others and CWP No. 11935 of 2009 titled Prem Parkash Vs. State of Punjab and Others as common questions of facts and law are involved. For reference to record, CWP No. 9683 of 2009 titled Narpat Rai Vs. State of Punjab and Others is taken up. Gist of the claim made in the petition is that the petitioner had C.W.P. No. 9683 of 2009 -2- been working in various capacities at Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpur Kandi Township, Pathankot. Initial appointment of the petitioner was on temporary/work charge basis. The nature of job involved at Ranjit Sagar Dam was hazardous and involved danger to life. The work was required to be concluded within stipulated time. On account of such tough working conditions, certain special increments were allowed to the petitioner even during the period when the petitioner was working on temporary/work charge basis on the said project. Subsequently, however, at the time of retirement, vide the impugned action of the respondents, the special increments released during the time the petitioner was working on temporary/work basis are sought to be withdrawn and recovery effected accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue is covered by decision of this Court dated 27.05.2009 rendered in CWP No. 5568 of 2008, Charan Dass and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others. This Court while considering the issue as regards grant of special increments, has held that such increments were granted selectively from person to person and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not justified. So far as recovery part is concerned, this Court has relied on Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.2799 of 2008 alongwith other connected matters titled Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.5.2009 and hence to the limited extent of recovery, the petition has been allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State admits that the issue is covered by the judgment rendered in Charan Dass case (supra). Learned C.W.P. No. 9683 of 2009 -3- counsel for the respondent has further not been able to show any document or material that would indicate fraud played by the petitioners or any misrepresentation made by the petitioners to actuate release of special increments during the period the petitioners served on temporary/work charge basis. In Charan Dass's case (supra), the following has been held:- “It is admitted case of the parties that the work charge period is to be counted as qualifying period for the grant of pensionary benefits and thus the emoluments drawn by the employee as work charge employee had to be considered as also the period when the employee served in work charge capacity. It is admitted case of the parties that the benefit of retrenchment increments and special increments was granted to the employees during the period they were serving in work charge capacity without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The benefit allowed to the petitioners is, however, sought to be withdrawn after take over and regularisation by the State Government with effect from 13.3.1996. The retrenchment increments were allowed to bring their salary and emoluments at par with other employees in the revised pay scale, keeping in view their last drawn salary as retrenchees. No reasons have been given in the reply as to how such benefit is impermissible or illegal. The State, however, has attempted to justify its action regarding withdrawal of special and retrenchment increments. C.W.P. No. 9683 of 2009 -4- Admittedly, special increments were granted from time to time to some of the employees/petitioners for their alleged good work. There was no uniform policy and benefit of special increments was given on selective basis. In so far as the retrenchment increments are concerned, there cannot be any second opinion that the benefit was granted to bring their wages at par under the revised pay scale and that too before their take over by the State Government. As regards the grant of special increments is concerned, it was selectively granted from person to person and is not justified. However, one fact remains common in regard to grant of both the benefits i.e. retrenchment increments and special increments that the said benefits were conferred upon the petitioners without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The issue is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.2799 of 2008 alongwith other connected matters (Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. The case of the petitioners falls in category ii) wherein following observations have been made:- “It is in the light of the above pronouncement, no longer open to the authorities granting the 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 C.W.P. No. 9683 of 2009 -5- 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…… 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 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….” In view of the above, the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently the pay of the petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two months. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory C.W.P. No. 9683 of 2009 -6- rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits or the salary of the petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period. Ordered accordingly. Disposed of." In view of the conceded position that the issue is covered by Charan Dass case (supra), the petitions are allowed in terms and to the extent of decision rendered in Charan Dass case (supra). 02.09.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?