IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 823 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.4.2010. Labh Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner has retired from service on 30.11.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. He is aggrieved of the order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) re-fixing his salary and order dated 3.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby an amount of Rs. 1,0,1900/- is said to be recovered from his death-cum-retirement gratuity as a consequence of re-fixation. The salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly given the benefit of the proficiency step-up as well as the higher responsibility increments. Though, petitioner has challenged the re- fixation as also the recovery, however, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions not to press the relief as far the re-fixation is concerned and now the relief is only confined to the recovery part. The controversy in this regard is settled by a Full Bench of this Court in case of Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others wherein following observations have been made:- CWP. No. 823 of 2009(O&M) -2- 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 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; Issue No. ii) has been answered with the following observations:- “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 CWP. No. 823 of 2009(O&M) -3- already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them….” There is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation either in the impugned order or in the reply filed by the respondents. The benefit was granted to the petitioner on interpretation of the relevant Govt. Instructions/Rules. Under such circumstances no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. In view of the above circumstances, while maintaining the order (Annexure P-2), the order (Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed and respondents are directed not to effect any recovery from the petitioner. The amount, if, any recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 29.4.2010. lucky