CWP No.946 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 07.7.2010 Sukhwinder Singh Sekhon ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The petitioner initially served with the Indian Air Force from 7.9.1965 to 30.11.1980. On being discharged from Air Force service, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk with the respondents w.e.f. 25.7.1986. He was granted seven advance increments vide order dated 3.9.1990 (Annexure P-1) for service rendered in the Air force. He retired as Sr. Clerk from the office of respondent no.3 on 30.6.2006 on attaining the age of retirement. At the time of his retirement, while considering the case of the petitioner for grant of retrial benefits, it was found that the petitioner was entitled to two increments for rendering service in the Air Force whereas he has been CWP No.946 of 2009 2 wrongly granted seven increments. Accordingly, the Office of the Accountant General communicated to the department of the petitioner vide letter dated 5.6.2006 (Annexure P-2). On the basis of the aforesaid letter, the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed and recovery of an amount of Rs.1,07,780/- from gratuity and Rs.31,809/- from leave encashment has been ordered to be made, vide order dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has challenged both these orders. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the recovery part and has abandoned the relief for re-fixation. From the reply filed by respondents and the impugned orders, it appears that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to two increments for rendering service in the Air Force during period of Emergency whereas he has been wrongly granted seven increments. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This issue is no more res integra having been settled by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.2799 of 2008 alongwith other connected matters (Budh Ram and others vs. 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 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 CWP No.946 of 2009 3 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…… 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 respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioner. This petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) to the extent of recovery are hereby quashed. However, the orders re-fixing the pay/pension of the petitioner are upheld. If any amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, the same be refunded to him within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 07.7.2010 MFK