C.W.P No.15844 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.15844 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 21.01.2011 Charanjit Kaur Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist on 15.10.1975. The State of Punjab issued a notification regarding grant of Proficiency Step up increments on completion of 8/18 years of service. On that basis, the petitioner was granted the ACP benefit on completion of 24/32 years of service respectively The petitioner retired on 31.12.2009 on attaining the age of suppranuation. Prior to her retirement, when her pension case was being processed an objection was raised by respondent No.4, vide his letter dated 22.12.2009, to the effect that the Proficiency step up granted to the petitioner, on completion of 24/32 years of service be withdrawn. On such objection being raised, the respondents have C.W.P No.15844 of 2010 2 issued the order dated 26.8.2010 for re-fixation of the salary of the petitioner and consequently recovery of Rs.69040/- said to be withdrawn in excess by the petitioner This order is under challenge in the present writ petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the relief only to the recovery part. Under these circumstances, recovery from the petitioner is not permissible, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511, wherein following observations have been made:- “(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 enerous duties by the employee concerned; Issue No.(ii) has been answered with following observation:- 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 onerous 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 C.W.P No.15844 of 2010 3 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......” In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-9 is hereby quashed as regard recovery. However, the State is at liberty to refix the salary of the petitioner. The amount, if any, recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) 21.1.2011. JUDGE Anoop