CWP No.6519 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 23.2.2010 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RS Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved of re-fixation of their salary and the recovery from him. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the recovery part and has withdrawn the relief for re-fixation. From the reply filed by respondents, it appears that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. It is stated that due to anomalies having been found in the pay of the petitioner, his pay has been ordered to be re-fixed and the recovery has also been ordered. This issue is no more res integra having been settled by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.2799 of 2008 alongwith other CWP No.6519 of 2008 2 connected matters (Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009 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 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affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules.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 petitioner. The action of the respondents is thus not sustainable in law. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to effect any recovery from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of the pay. However, the respondents are entitled to re-fix CWP No.6519 of 2008 3 the salary etc. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same be refunded to him. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.2.2010 MFK