CWP No. 10675 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 16331 and 17149 of 2010 in/and CWP No. 10675 of 1989 Date of Decision: December 09, 2010 Davinder Sachdeva and others ..... Petitioners versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari **** Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral): CM No. 16331 of 2010 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. With the consent of learned counsel, main case is taken up for hearing CM No. 17149 of 2010 CM allowed. Written statement taken on record. CWP No. 10675 of 1989 2 CWP No. 10675 of 1989 . This petition has been filed alleging that some benefits were granted to those persons who had undergone sterilisation operations under the small family norms. However, within three months the same benefits were withdrawn though part of it was allowed to continue. Respondent-University has stated that the benefits were originally granted by the State Government and were extended to the University since the Government was paying for the same. Thereafter the Government withdrew the benefits from its employes and consequently the University had no option but to withdraw the same from its employees also. It has also been pleaded that the impugned order has made only a very marginal difference and has been passed as a result of the reversion of the policy. In my opinion no fault can be found with the stand of the respondent-University. There is, however, yet another aspect of the matter. For some period the enhanced benefits were given to the petitioners and on a reversal of the policy the same were sought to be recovered. It has not been disputed that when the benefits were granted to the petitioners it was not on account of any malfeasance on their part. In Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(4) SLR 298, a Full Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “It is in the light of 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 employe on the basis of CWP No. 10675 of 1989 3 any such erroneous grant..........................................................” ................................................................................................... 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 for 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 the circumstances the writ petition is consequently dismissed but it is directed that no recovery shall be made of the benefits which were granted to the petitioners. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE December 09, 2010 sunita