Civil Writ Petition No.12735 of 2004 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12735 of 2004 Date of decision: September 08, 2010. Krishan Chand ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner(s). Shri Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that letter dated 22.8.2003, Annexure P-2, whereby instructions were issued by the Government of Haryana to re-fix the salary of the petitioner, along with Annexure P-3, dated 3.7.2004, whereby a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner that after re-fixation of salary, amount already paid to the petitioner is to be recovered, be quashed. Briefly stated, petitioner was working the Haryana Education Department and after the recommendations of the Pay Commission, his pay was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998. The pay of the petitioner was fixed under Rule 7(1)(a) of the Revised Pay Rules after giving benefit of admissible bunching Civil Writ Petition No.12735 of 2004 -: 2 :- and the petitioner was placed in higher standard pay scale of Rs.1400- 2600/-. Subsequently, another instructions were issued by the Government called Assured Career Progression Rules, 1998, and in consonance therewith instructions too were issued by the Government. As a result of follow up instructions (Annexure P-2), a notice to show cause as to why the recovery, due to re-fixation of pay, be not made from the petitioner. In the notice (Annexure P-3), it was specified as under:- “In reference to the above cited subject you are informed that after giving you benefit of Proviso 3 Rule 15 of ACP in respect to revise pay scale of Rs.6500-10,500/- on 1.1.96 your salary was fixed for Rs.6900/-. Now the Govt. has clarified under third proviso is to be given to those who have obtained three annual increment in pay is to be given to them through revised pay scale. Present pay scale of 6500-10,500/- has been given to you from dated 1.1.96 and thereafter you have got two increments in present pay scale on 31.12.98 in actual form. So the benefit provided to you under proviso 3 of Rule 98 of ACP is wrong as per Government letter No.6/149/2002 PRFD dated 22.8.93 and that is required to be taken back. As per the instruction of Government your salary is proposed to be fixed as 6500 on 1.1.96 in the revised pay scale of 6500-10,500/-....” Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision dated 22.2.2010 passed in CWP No.19003 of 2007 (Rama Bahl v. State of Punjab & Ors.), wherein a Single Judge of this Court, relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009), has Civil Writ Petition No.12735 of 2004 -: 3 :- held as under:- “.... the petitioner appears to be justified in relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009) wherein it is ruled that the employee who was not guilty of misrepresentation, fraud or deception while receiving any monetary gain under the mistake of the functionary of the State Government, deserves to be dealt with independently and cannot be called upon to refund to the Government the undeserved payment that he/she has already received. (8). In such like cases, the Full Bench concluded that:- “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 Civil Writ Petition No.12735 of 2004 -: 4 :- 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. It does not require much imagination to say that additional monetary benefits going to an employee may not always result in accumulation of his resources and savings. Such a benefit may often be utilized on smaller luxuries of life which the employee and his family may not have been able to afford had the benefit not been extended to him. The employees can well argue that if it was known to them that the additional benefit is only temporary and would be recovered back from them, they would not have committed themselves to any additional expenditure in their daily affairs and would have cut their coat according to their cloth. 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.” For the reasons given in Budh Ram's case (supra), the present Civil Writ Petition No.12735 of 2004 -: 5 :- writ petition is partly allowed. The action of the respondents whereby recovery of excess payment received by the petitioner was sought to be made, is quashed. However, the impugned order to the extent of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner and consequential re-determination is upheld. Recovery, if made already from the petitioner, shall be refunded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 08, 2010. Judge kadyan