IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13851 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.01.2011 Gurdev Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Sukhdip S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner retired from the service on 31.05.2010 as Senior Medical Laboratory Technician on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-4) for the recovery of ` 4,60,502/- from the petitioner on re-fixation of his salary on the ground that the benefit was wrongly given to the petitioner. From the impugned order, it appears that no fraud or misrepresentation is attributed to the petitioner. The controversy in the present case is fully covered by a full bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram and others Versus 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 CWP No.13851 of 2010 -2- 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 relief 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affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on wheat may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules.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 recovery ordered against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed and impugned order (Annexure P-4) to the extent of recovery is hereby set aside, however, the respondents are at liberty to re-fix the salary and consequential pensionary benefits. 19.01.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE