IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 08, 2009 1. Civil Writ Petition No.13896 of 2008 Asha Rani .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Civil Writ Petition No.13911 of 2008 Santosh Kumari .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 3. Civil Writ Petition No.16580 of 2008 Mohinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.13896 of 2008 [2] 4. Civil Writ Petition No.19806 of 2008 Parmjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 5. Civil Writ Petition No.20648 of 2008 Surinder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 6. Civil Writ Petition No.20783 of 2008 Harbans Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.13896 of 2008 [3] 7. Civil Writ Petition No.9453 of 2009 Champa Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 8. Civil Writ Petition No.9472 of 2009 Surinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 9. Civil Writ Petition No.9484 of 2009 Nirmal Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.13896 of 2008 [4] 10. Civil Writ Petition No.9486 of 2009 Vijay Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 11. Civil Writ Petition No.9531 of 2009 Harninder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 12. Civil Writ Petition No.9590 of 2009 Harjinder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.13896 of 2008 [5] 13. Civil Writ Petition No.9494 of 2009 Chanchal Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 14. Civil Writ Petition No.14891 of 2009 Harbhajan Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 15. Civil Writ Petition No.14189 of 2009 Avtar Kaur & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.13896 of 2008 [6] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This shall dispose of a bunch of petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved. For reference to facts, CWP No.13896 of 2008 (Asha Rani vs. State of Punjab & Others) is being taken up. This 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 dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.2 i.e. Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, addressed to respondent No.5 i.e. Block Primary Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, directing withdrawal of three advance increments awarded to the petitioner on acquiring higher qualification of Prabhakar. Resultantly, the amount already released in favour of the petitioner has been ordered to be recovered. Perusal of Order, Annexure P-4, CWP No.13896 of 2008 [7] indicates that the Audit & Account Department, Punjab, on submission of pension papers of the petitioner noticed that the petitioner had been allowed benefit of higher qualification based scale of three advance increments w.e.f. 1.1.1978. It has been pointed out in the impugned order that the benefits were not permissible, hence recovery be made. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), at the very outset states that the petitioners in all the petitions, confine their claim only in challenge to recovery and not to the parent order itself vide which the advance increments have been ordered to be withdrawn. In regard to recovery, learned counsel relies on judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2799 of 2008 titled `Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others’ decided on 22.05.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents, so far as the issue of recovery is concerned, has not disputed that the issue would be covered by Budh Ram's case (supra). In Budh Ram's case (supra), the following question was framed for determination:- “ii) Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered were granted on the basis of a bonafide mistake committed by the authority granting the same while applying or CWP No.13896 of 2008 [8] interpreting a provision contained in the service rule, regulation or any other memo or circular authorizing such grant regardless whether or not grant of benefits involved the performance of higher or more onerous duties by the employee concerned;” The question has been answered in the following way:- “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 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, inquitable 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 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 the case in hand, the department had taken a decision to give advance increments CWP No.13896 of 2008 [9] to the petitioner and other persons on account of higher qualification acquired, though erroneously. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show any document or material that would indicate fraud played by the petitioner or any misrepresentation made by the petitioner to actuate release of advance increments. Under the circumstances, leaned counsel for the respondents concedes that the case is covered by the judgment in Budh Ram’s case (supra). In view of the above, the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents would not be entitled to effect recovery from the petitioner. Consequently, it is directed that the amount recovered in the interregnum period would be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. All the petitions are disposed of in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) October 08, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?