IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 19, 2011 1. Civil Writ Petition No.11107 of 2006 Gurcharan Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Civil Writ Petition No.11112 of 2006 Laxmi Narayan Goel .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 3. Civil Writ Petition No.12160 of 2006 Bakhshish Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others CWP No.11107 of 2006 [2] .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.P. Paul, Advocate, for Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This shall dispose of three petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos.11107 of 2006 titled ‘Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab & others’; 11112 of 2006 titled ‘Laxmi Narayan Goel vs. State of Punjab & others’; and 12160 of 2006 titled ‘Bakhshish Singh vs. State of Punjab & others’ as similar facts and questions of law are involved. 2. For reference to facts, file of Civil Writ Petition Nos.11107 of 2006 titled ‘Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab & others’ is being taken up. 3. Challenge in this petition is to action of the respondents taken by virtue of issuance of order/ letter dated 1.5.2006 (Annexure P-4), vide which, on the basis of audit report, pay of the petitioner has been refixed on withdrawal of advance increment(s). CWP No.11107 of 2006 [3] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in all the three cases, contends that challenge in the petitions is confined to recovery from the petitioners only. Refixation of pay, however, is accepted by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel contends that respondents cannot effect recovery from the petitioners in view of the fact that petitioners did not play fraud or misrepresent facts. In such circumstances, the issue would be covered by law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. 6. Leaned counsel for the respondent-State contends that recovery is sought from the petitioners on account of submission of audit report. Excess amount was paid to the petitioners which was not payable. Learned counsel, from the reply, however, has not been able to show that petitioners played fraud or misrepresented facts so as to get monetary benefits. 7. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to show that the cases are not covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Budh Ram’s case (supra). 8. I have considered the issue. CWP No.11107 of 2006 [4] 9. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this peti- tion:- “It is in the light of the above pronouncement, no longer open to the authorities granting the benefits, no matter er- roneously, to contend that even when the employee con- cerned was not at fault and was not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the authorities, they are enti- tled 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 pay- able. Acting on that belief the employee would, as any other person placed in his position arrange his affairs ac- cordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be with- drawn 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 di- rect 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 appli- cation of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions have not in any way contributed to such erroneous inter- pretation nor have they committed any fraud, misrepresen- tation, 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.” 10. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed in terms of Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil CWP No.11107 of 2006 [5] Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioners. In the meantime, in the interregnum period if any recovery has been effected, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioners within four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The action of the respondents in regard refixation of pay, however, is maintained. (AJAI LAMBA) May 19, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?