LPA No. 1757 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1757 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 21.12.2010 Munish Kumar -----Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 15.02.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition filed by the appellant. The limited prayer made in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge has failed to grant the appellant any relief regarding recovery of increment paid to him on account of revised date of enlistment of Constable Paramjit Kaur. It has come on record that vide order 24.11.2006, the date of increment of Constable Paramjit Kaur was revised to 18.07.1995 and the same benefit was given to the appellant vide order dated 29.09.1998. However, later vide order LPA No. 1757 of 2010 (O&M) -2- dated 24.11.2006 (P-3) the deemed date was changed to 08.06.1999. Accordingly, it has been urged that the payment of increment w.e.f. 18.07.1995 to 08.06.1999 were given under the bona fide belief and order passed by the authority. According to the learned counsel, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the appellant so as to accept any undue advantage of pecuniary benefits. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the case of the appellant is fully covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) SCT 333. 2. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State counsel has not been able to successfully controvert the aforesaid assertion made by the counsel for the appellant, although he made an attempt to do so. 3. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the benefit of increment could not be recovered because it was on account of bona fide mistake committed by the respondent- department that he was given the same date as was given to Constable Paramjit Kaur. The case of the appellant is covered by a Full Judgment of this Court rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra). The second proposition laid down by the Full Bench in Budh Ram' case (supra) is that if benefits as sought to be recovered have been granted on the basis of a bona fide mistake committed by the authority granting same while applying or interpreting a provision contained in the service rule, regulation or any other memo or LPA No. 1757 of 2010 (O&M) -3- circular authorizing such grant regardless whether or not grant of benefits involved the performance of higher or more onerous duties by the employees. The aforesaid principle fully applied to the facts of the present case. 4. In view thereof, the appeal is allowed to the extent that no recovery be made from the appellant in respect of any wrong payment paid in pursuance of the bona fide order dated 29.09.1998. The appeal stands disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 21, 2010 Atul