C.W.P No.1966 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.1966 of 2011 Date of Decision 02.02.2011 Dr.K.C.Manchanda Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) Notice of motion. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General,Punjab, has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner retired as Professor & Head, Department of Physiology, Government Medical College, Amritsar on 31.07.2010. After the retirement vide impugned order dated 27.10.2010, pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed and recovery has been ordered out of the retiral benefit of the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines the relief only to the recovery part and does not dispute the re-fixation. In so far as the question of recovery is concerned, admittedly, the benefit was granted to the petitioner without any C.W.P No.1966 of 2011 2 misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Under these circumstances, recovery from the petitioner is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511, wherein following observation has 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 enerous duties by the employee concerned; Issue No.(ii) has been answered with following observation:- 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 onerous 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 C.W.P No.1966 of 2011 3 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......” In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside only to the extent of recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The amount, if any, recovered shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) 02.02.2011. JUDGE Anoop