CWP No.1156 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.1156 of 2007 Date of decision : 8.4.2011 Makhan Lal ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr.G.L.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing notice Annexure P-2 dated 1.12.2006. Vide notice Annexure P-2, the petitioner has been asked to refund the monetary benefits granted to the petitioner in excess in regard to salary and allowances. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that refixation of pay is accepted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresent facts to get monetary benefits. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot effect recovery in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the judgment passed on 22.5.2009 in the case of “Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008, reported as 2009 (3) PLR 511. A perusal of reply, in particular Para No.3 thereof, makes it evident that it is the conceded position of the official respondents that pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed, by error of the respondents. CWP No.1156 of 2007 -2- In view of the stand of the respondents, it becomes evident that the petitioner has not played any fraud and has not misrepresented facts. I have considered the issue. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this petition :- “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affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules.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 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 CWP No.1156 of 2007 -3- can well argue that if it was known to them that the additional benefit is only temporary and would be recovered back from the, 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.” In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra). Notice Annexure P-2 is accordingly quashed. It is further made clear that the re-fixation of the pay shall be maintained. However, recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioner by error of the respondents shall not be recovered. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 8.4.2011 akm 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?