C.W.P. No.15484 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15484 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.07.2010. Mrs. Kamlesh Gupta ........Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Electricity Board and Another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) The petitioner retired from the service of respondents on 31.12.2006 as Circle Assistant. The respondents effected recovery from the gratuity of the petitioner. An amount of Rs.3,17,600/- on account of withdrawal of the promotional benefits granted to the petitioner, apart from that, an amount of Rs.4252/- total Rs.3,21,852/- has been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.3454 of 2008, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 11th August, 2008 permitting the respondents to pass an appropriate order within four months. In consequence of the above, respondents passed the order dated 3rd February, 2009 (Annexure P-6), which is under challenge herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's grievance is only with regard to the recovery. However, the petitioner do not dispute the re-fixation of the salary. C.W.P. No.15484 of 2009 -2- There is no allegation in the reply or in the impugned order that the benefit was granted to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud. The controversy in this petition is settled by Full Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.2799 of 2008 titled 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 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....... C.W.P. No.15484 of 2009 -3- 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 circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) The order of recovery from the petitioner is hereby quashed; ii) Respondents shall refund the amount of Rs.3,17,600/- recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner within two months with statutory interest; iii) In respect to the recovery of Rs.4252/-, the petitioner is at liberty to make representation to the respondents and same shall be considered and decided within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the representation. iv) The respondents are entitled to re-fix the salary and retiral benefits in terms of impugned order. 05.07.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE