IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10857 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 28.05.2009 Tarlochan Kumar .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pavit Mattewal, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is working as LDC (Typist) in the office of AO/Pay & Accounts, Patiala, Punjab State Electricity Board, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.3, whereby the annual increments mistakenly granted to the petitioner after his promotion as LDC on 30.9.1997 till the date of passing of the typing test, have been withdrawn and recovery to that extent has been ordered, on the ground that the petitioner did not pass the typing test. The petitioner was initially appointed as Class IV employee on 15.12.1984. Lateron, he was promoted as LDC on 30.9.1997. In the CWP No. 10857 of 2008 -2- promotion order, there was no condition that the petitioner was to clear the typing test. In the year 2000, the cadres of LDC and Typist were merged into a common cadre of LDC (Typist) and vide memo dated 5.2.2001, (Annexure R-3), keeping in view to maintain efficiency and office discipline into common cadre of LDC (Typist), it was decided that all LDCs working in the respondent Board, who do not know the typing as per prescribed speed of 30 words per minute, both in Punjabi and English, will have to pass the typing test within a period of one year from the date of issuance of those instructions, failing which they will not be granted annual increments. Subsequently, vide memo dated 3.3.2006 (Annexure R-5), the respondent Board took a policy decision that those LDCs, who have not passed the typing test, be provided three months' Computer Training instead of passing the typing test and if an employee passes the said Computer Training Examination, he will be given the increment with effect from the date of passing of the said Examination. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner has passed the Punjabi and English Computer Training Test on 30.11.2006. After passing the said test, the respondents passed the impugned order, whereby recovery from the petitioner has been ordered on the ground that in spite of the fact that he did not pass the typing test, he was granted the annual increments, contrary to the aforesaid instructions. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. CWP No. 10857 of 2008 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the Full Bench decision of this Court in CWP No. 2799 of 2008, titled as Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.5.2009, has argued that the respondents are not entitled to recover the payment made by them towards the annual increments on account of erroneous interpretation of the Rule, Regulation or instructions. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner never made any mis-representation nor played any fraud and the respondent authority at its own had granted the said benefit to the petitioner. Counsel contends that out of three categories mentioned in the Full Bench decision of this Court, case of the petitioner falls in category (ii). Therefore, the respondents cannot recover the amount from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents could not make out a case that the benefit of annual increments was extended to the petitioner on the basis of any mis-representation made by him. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was an instrument in any manner for getting the said benefit, which was contrary to the instructions of the respondent Board. The Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra) has held 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 CWP No. 10857 of 2008 -4- 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 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 CWP No. 10857 of 2008 -5- 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 aforesaid legal position as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed not to recover any amount in terms of the impugned order, on account of grant of annual increments to the petitioner. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. May 28, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE