IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Miscellaneous No.16881 of 2008 & Civil Writ Petition No.11103 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 03, 2009 Neelam Marwaha & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Karamvir Singh, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) C.M. No.16881 of 2008 Issue notice of the application. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. On request of learned counsel for the parties, let the main writ petition itself be taken up for final hearing. C.W.P. No.11103 of 2007 In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, CWP No.11103 of 2007 [2] petitioners (eight in number) pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P-1) whereby the pay of the petitioners has been refixed after a period of more than nine years and recovery of various amounts from the petitioners has been ordered to be effected. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, contends that the prayer of the petitioners is confined to quashing of recovery only. There is no challenge to the refixation itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the case of the petitioners would be covered under the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others), decided on 22.5.2009. It has further been contended that the petitioners had not actuated the pay fixation initially. The petitioners have not played any role in that regard. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute the fact that there has been neither any misrepresentation nor any fraud played on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel has further not been able to distinguish CWP No.11103 of 2007 [3] the judgment in Budh Ram’s case (supra). I have considered the issue. In Budh Ram’s case (supra), the following three questions were framed for determination:- i) Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered from the employees were granted to them on the basis of any fraud, misrepresentation or any other act of deception; 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; iii) Cases that do not fall in either one of the above two categories but where the nature of the benefit and extent is so unconnected with his service conditions that the employee must be presumed to have known that the benefit was flowing to him undeservedly because of a mistake by the authority granting the same. For considering the claim of the petitioner, consideration of question No.2 would be relevant. Full Bench of this Court while considering question No.2, extracted above, has held in the following terms:- “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 CWP No.11103 of 2007 [4] 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 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.” From the facts of the present case, it is made out that the petitioner had neither played any fraud nor had misrepresented the facts. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others), decided on 22.5.2009. (AJAI LAMBA) August 03, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?