IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14809 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: September 02, 2009 Raj Kumari and Another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing action of the respondents vide which pension of the petitioners has been reduced w.e.f. September 2003 and recovery is being effected without issuance of show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension payable to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners confine their claim only in challenge to recovery being effected from the petitioners and not to the parent order itself under which the pension is sought to be reduced. C.W.P. No. 14809 of 2004 -2- In regard to recovery, learned counsel relies on judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2799 of 2008 . Learned counsel for the respondent, so far as the issue of recovery is concerned, has not disputed that the issue would be covered by Budh Ram's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent has further not been able to show any document or material that would indicate any fraud played by the petitioner or any misrepresentation made by the petitioner to actuate release of additional benefits. In Budh Ram's case (supra), the following question was framed for determination:- “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;” The question has been answered in the following way:- “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 C.W.P. No. 14809 of 2004 -3- 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, inquitable 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 C.W.P. No. 14809 of 2004 -4- 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.” Considering the fact that the petitioners confine their claim to recovery part only and the fact that the respondents have not been able to show any material that the petitioners had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts, the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents would not be entitled to effect recovery from the pension of the petitioners. Consequently, it is directed that the recovery already effected would be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is made clear that re-fixation of the pension would be permissible. 02.09.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?