IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10407 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 24, 2009 Sita Devi .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 08.07.2008 Annexure P-1 passed by respondent no. 3 i.e. Superintending Engineer, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Punjab. It transpires that vide order Annexure P-1 recovery of the benefits paid to the petitioner have been withdrawn and resultant recoveries have been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter is covered by judgment dated 22.05.2009 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2799 of 2008. Learned counsel states that the challenge is confined to recovery C.W.P. No. 10407 of 2009 -2- only and not to the prospective withdrawal of benefit. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute that the issue of recovery would be covered by judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra). I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. In Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2799 of 2008, while considering the second question for determination viz.:- “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;”, the following has been held:- “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 C.W.P. No. 10407 of 2009 -3- 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, inquitable 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 C.W.P. No. 10407 of 2009 -4- 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.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the fact that respondent no. 2 has not been able to distinguish the judgment, this petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 22.05.2009 of this Court rendered in Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2 799 of 2008. 24.08.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?