C.M. No. 10264 of 2011 in (1) C.W.P. No. 15441 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 10264 of 2011 in C.W.P. No. 15441 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: 07.09.2011 Jagtar Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board & Anr. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate for the respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The prayer of the petitioner in the main petition is for quashing of the impugned order dated 5.8.2003 (Annexure P-3), whereby, respondent has passed an order of recovery of an amount of ` 32,820/- on account of excess payment of the benefit of one proficiency step up increment granted to the petitioner. After issuing notice of motion, the case was admitted and now an application has been moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner for disposal of the main case in view of the law laid down by Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (2009-3) PLR 511. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the benefit was given by the Department and subsequently C.M. No. 10264 of 2011 in (2) C.W.P. No. 15441 of 2003 the order of recovery was passed, which is contrary to the law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents has not controverted the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is covered by the ration of law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra). Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file. Admittedly, there was no misrepresentation, fraud or concealment on the part of the petitioner and in absence of any such material to the contrary, the petitioner is justified in relying upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram’s case (supra) wherein it has been held that an employee who is not guilty of any misrepresentation, fraud or deceiving the authority to secure monetary gains granted due to the mistake of that authority, deserves to be dealt with independently and cannot be called upon to refund to the Government the undeserved payment which has already been received. The relevant portion of the judgment of Budh Ram’s case (supra) is reproduced as under; “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 C.M. No. 10264 of 2011 in (3) C.W.P. No. 15441 of 2003 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 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. 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 C.M. No. 10264 of 2011 in (4) C.W.P. No. 15441 of 2003 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 ratio of judgment in Budh Ram’s case (supra), the present petition is partly allowed and the action of the respondents in ordering recovery of the excess amount received by the petitioner as a result of granting one proficiency step up increment and other benefits is hereby quashed. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case the respondents on verification of the records found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts or has played any fraud or concealed something to gain monetary benefits, the respondents are at liberty to seek review of the order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The respondents are also at liberty to refix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law. September 07, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.M. No. 10264 of 2011 in (5) C.W.P. No. 15441 of 2003