IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP. No. 1214 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.8.2009. Onkar Singh Sodhi --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents 2. CWP. No. 910 of 2008 P.S. Kainth --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents 3. CWP. No. 5323 of 2008 Wg. Cdr. A.S. Punj Rath --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- None for the petitioner in CWP No. 5323 of 2008. Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate. Ms. Sangeeta Dubey, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) All the petitioners herein retired from the Indian Air Force in the rank of Wing Commanders. Due to shortage of Commissioned Officers the Govt. of India formulated a policy to re-employ the retired employees on contract basis. All the petitioners were re-employed and their contractual terms came to be extended from time to time. Thereafter, they were retired CWP. No. 1214 of 2008 -2- on expiry of the contract period. After their retirement, the respondents issued letters for the recovery of certain amount on the ground that their re- employment pay was wrongly fixed on account of the delayed receipt of the Govt. Policy. Accordingly, the recovery was effected from the petitioners from their pensionary benefits. The petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the action of the respondents in effecting the recovery from petitioners. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 8338 of 2008 titled as Wing Commander V.P. Sachar (retd.) Vs. Union of India and others, which came to be decided vide judgement dated 28.11.2008 with the following directions:- “ A writ of mandamus is issued quashing the impugned order of recovery and the amount, if any, recovered from the pension should be remitted to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. We see no reason why such an eventuality should arise when we have settled the legal position in that behalf and in respect of all such officers, who benefit from the orders passed by us. We thus direct that the concerned authorities of the respondents to examine the cases of all such similarly situated officer and process the cases according to the judgements rendered by us within a maximum period of three months from today to obviate the necessity of such persons approaching this court which not only causes inconvenience to the petitioners and burdens the docket of this court but also results in unnecessary expenses of the respondents as also of the petitioners.” On the basis of the aforesaid judgement the Air Head Quarter issued instructions to implement the judgement vide its circular dated CWP. No. 1214 of 2008 -3- 20.4.2009. In case of the present writ petitioners also the Air Force Station, Chandigarh vide its communication dated 28.4.2009 addressed to the Central Govt. Standing Counsel communicated to apply the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of these petitioners. A copy of such communication has been placed on record as Annexure P-12, which position is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. Apart from that the issue is also covered by a Full Bench judgement of this Court in CWP No. 2799 of 2008 etc. titled as Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 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 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… 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.” These petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned order of recovery is quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release all the admissible pensionary benefits to the petitioners without making any deductions on account of the impugned recovery demands. If, any recovery has already been made, the same shall also be reimbursed to the petitioners within a period of two months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.8.2009 lucky