CWP No.2287 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2287 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.04.2010 **** Raj Kumar . . . . 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. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who is a retired Junior Basic Teacher (JBT), joined the Education Department, Government of Punjab on 22.10.1974 initially on ad hoc basis, followed by regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.04.1977. He impugns and seeks quashing of the letter dated 09.03.2009 vide which his pay has been ordered to be refixed w.e.f. 22.10.1974 and consequential recovery sought to be effected on account of withdrawal of the benefit of higher grade. (2). While restricting his challenge qua the ‘recovery’ only, the petitioner’s case is that he never misrepresented CWP No.2287 of 2010.doc - 2 – the facts nor played any fraud or used deceptive means to secure any monetary gain, therefore, even if the action of granting higher grade to him was erroneous or contrary to the Rules/Instructions, no recovery of the resultant emoluments already paid to him can be effected. (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 while seeking the aforesaid benefit. (4). At the same time and in the absence of any material to the contrary, the petitioner appears to be justified in relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others reported as 2009 (3) PLR 511 wherein it is ruled that an employee who was not guilty of misrepresentation, fraud or deception at the time of grant of some service benefit 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). Replying upon the decision in Budh Ram’s case (supra), this Court in a bunch of writ petitions CWP No.2287 of 2010.doc - 3 – including CWP No.19003 of 2007 titled as Rama Behl Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 22.02.2010 has held as follows:- “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 his pay is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of his pay and consequential re-determination of the retiral benefits is 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. 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 review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” (6). Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that this writ petition may be allowed in part in terms of the decision rendered in Rama Behl’s case (supra). (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 01.04.2010 vishal shonkar CWP No.2287 of 2010.doc - 4 –