CWP No. 15436 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15436 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: May 10, 2011 Smt. Malkiat Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order Annexure P-1 dated 02.04.2007 whereby, recovery of ` 1,89,091/- from death gratuity of deceased-husband of the petitioner has been ordered. 2. It has been pleaded that Sh. Gurdev Singh Gill, husband of the petitioner, was working as Superintendent in respondent-College. Sh. Gurdev Singh Gill died on 21.04.2006 on account of heart attack, while in service. Sh. Gurdev Singh served the respondents since 1966 and was scheduled to retire in the year 2009. Total allocation towards death gratuity of the husband of the petitioner was ` 3,50,000/-. By virtue of impugned action, sum of ` 1,89,091/- has been withheld on the pretext that pay of the husband of the petitioner had been wrongly fixed. Hence, the impugned recovery. CWP No. 15436 of 2007 2 3. It has been pleaded that no show cause notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner. It has been asserted in the pleadings that no recovery could be effected from a dead person. 4. From Annexure P-4 i.e. a memo addressed by Principal of the College to Accountant General, Punjab, it is deciphered that recovery from the account of deceased-employee is not possible. Memo Annexure P-4 does not indicate that monetary benefits were given to the husband of the petitioner on account of playing fraud or misrepresenting facts. 5. Bare perusal of the documents placed as Annexures with the petition indicate that the case 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. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the recovery itself has been ordered on account of wrong fixation of pay of the deceased- husband of the petitioner. On refixation of pay, certain amount is required to be recovered from the petitioner and therefore, the impugned action is proposed. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, admits that indeed the issue would be covered by law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra). 7. I have considered the issue. 8. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this petition:- “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 CWP No. 15436 of 2007 3 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 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 CWP No. 15436 of 2007 4 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 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.” 9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil 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 deceased- husband of the petitioner. In the meantime, in the interregnum period if any recovery has been effected, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The sum of ` 1,89,091/- withheld out of death gratuity shall also be released to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. The action of the respondents in regard to refixation of pay, however, is maintained. 10.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?