IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3636 of 2011 Date of Decision: 1.3.2011. Ramji Dass --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the nature of controversy and relief claimed, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself without insisting for the reply. The petitioner retired from the post of Senior Assistant on 31.8.2010. When his case was being processed for grant of pensionary benefits an objection seems to have been raised by the office of Accountant General regarding the grant of proficiency step up to the petitioner on 1.8.1991 and on that basis pay of the petitioner has been ordered to be refixed and consequential recovery has been made as is evident from the orders (Annexures P-1 & P-2). An amount of Rs. 66,355/- has been recovered. Petitioner has challenged both these orders in the present writ petition. CWP. No. 3636 of 2011 -2- From the impugned orders it appears that the benefit was conferred upon the petitioner without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, recovery from the petitioner is impermissible in view of the dictum of a Full Bench judgement of this Court in case of (Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others), passed in CWP No. 2799 of 2008, wherein following observations have been made:- ii)Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered were granted on the basis of a bonafide mistake committed by the authority granting the same while applying or interpreting a provision contained in the service rule, regulation or any other memo or circular authorizing such grant regardless whether or not grant of benefits involved the performance of higher or more onerous duties by the employee concerned; Issue No. ii) has been answered with the following observations:- “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, CWP. No. 3636 of 2011 -3- 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….” As regards the question of re-fixation is concerned, similar matters of re-fixation have been referred to a Committee constituted pursuant to the judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2.3.2010 passed in CWP No. 16323 of 2008. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned (Annexures P-1 & P-2) are hereby partly quashed. Amount recovered, if, any, from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of three months. The question of re-fixation in this case may also be referred to the Committee constituted by this Court. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 1.3.2011. lucky