LPA No. 1317 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1317 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 08, 2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. …Appellant Versus Baljit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani K. Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. 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 short issue raised by the New India Assurance Company Limited (for brevity 'the appellant-company') in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether non-core benefits paid to the writ petitioner-respondents could be recovered back from their retiral dues , which have been earlier paid to them. The learned Single Judge has noticed that Special Voluntary Retirement Package was floated by the appellant-company for the Development Officers in the year 2003. The Scheme was challenged in various High Courts by a number of employees and eventually Hon'ble the Supreme Court withdrew all the cases from different High Courts and upheld the scheme in an order passed in the year 2008. The scheme remained in abeyance during the LPA No. 1317 of 2011 (O&M) -2- pendency of the litigation till 2008. The writ petitioner-respondents had sought voluntary retirement but they were not retired under the Scheme. Eventually, they were relieved in the year 2008 after the Scheme was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The appellant- Company deducted non-core benefits, which have been paid to the writ petitioner-respondents from their retiral dues by order dated 21.05.2009 (P-6). The non-core benefits were granted and paid to the writ petitioner-respondents and other similarly situated employees from 01.04.2003 to 11.04.2008, when the writ petitioner- respondents worked as Development Officers (Marketing) for the said period and had actually spent the amount for procuring business for the appellant-Company within the cost ratio prescribed. 2. The Learned Single Judge has also noticed that the writ petitioner-respondents continued to perform the duties as Development Officer (Field) and were rightly paid non-core benefits. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Manoj Luthra v. New India Assurance Company and others (CWP No. 14088 of 2009 decided on 13.01.2010), wherein it has been held that the appellant- company could effect recovery only from such persons who had exercised their option for voluntary retirement and were serving as Development Officer (Administration) at the Head Offices, but still were paid non-core benefits. No recovery could have been effected from those persons like the writ petitioner-respondents who have opted for voluntary retirement but had continued to work as LPA No. 1317 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Development Officer (Field) despite exercise of option to work as Development Officer (Administration). The recovery orders were, thus, set aside by the learned Single Judge. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-company, we are of the view that no recovery could be effected from the writ petitioner-respondents, which have already been paid to them after their retirement. It has come on record that the writ petitioner- respondents have worked as Development Officer (Field) and the recovery is sought to be made in pursuance of some rule framed after their retirement. Therefore, such a recovery would be wholly unwarranted in law. In any case, benefits have been given to the writ petitioner-respondents without any misrepresentation and fraud and no recovery could be made from them in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram v. State of Haryana 2009 (3) SCT 333. The appeal is wholly without merit. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 08, 2011 Atul