IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) C.W.P. No.15486 of 2005 Prem Walia. ....... Petitioner through Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Respondent nos. 3 & 4 through Shri Samir Sachdev,Advocate. None for respondent no.2. (2) C.W.P. No.15495 of 2005 Mrs.C.K.Arora. ....... Petitioner through Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Respondent nos. 3 & 4 through Shri Samir Sachdev, Advocate. None for Respondent no.2. Date of Decision: 6.7.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... C.W.P.No.15486 of 2005 -2- .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two writ petitions as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. Petitioner-Prem Walia was appointed as Director of Physical Education (for short, `D.P.E.') in R.K.Arya College, Nawanshehr and later on, he was transferred to respondent-Arya College, Ludhiana where he joined on 26.3.1974, whereas petitioner-Mrs.C.K.Arora was appointed as D.P.E. on 26.7.1971in the latter college. Both these colleges are under one management. The pay scale granted to the petitioners was Rs.300-600 which was the pay scale admissible to a College Lecturer. On 1.1.1986, they were placed in the scale of Rs.3000-5000 and after completion of sixteen years' service, the pay scale allowed to them was Rs.3700-5700. In view of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, a Committee was constituted by the respondent-College which recommended the fixation of the pay of the petitioners at Rs.14940/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and at Rs.17880/- w.e.f. 1.5.2002. However, the respondent-College passed an order dated 18.6.2002 directing reduction of the pay of the petitioners with effect from 1.5.2002 at Rs.15780/-. Petitioner-Prem Walia challenged the said order by filing C.W.P.No.9999 of 2002, whereas petitioner-Mrs.C.K.Arora filed C.W.P.No.10005 of 2002. The writ petition filed by petitioner- C.W.P.No.15486 of 2005 -3- .... Mrs.C.K.Arora was disposed of vide order dated 23.4.2004 quashing order dated 18.6.2002 qua her with liberty to the respondents therein to pass a fresh order after giving her an opportunity of hearing. It is not clear from the record as to whether the writ petition filed by petitioner-Prem Walia stands decided or not, although it is evident that the same was admitted. Petitioner-Prem Walia retired from service on 31.12.2003, but he was not paid full gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund and hence, the instant petition was preferred by him. In the case of petitioner- Mrs.C.K.Arora, who also retired on 30.4.2005, the management of the respondent-College took a decision purportedly in compliance of order dated 23.4.2004 passed in C.W.P.No.10005 of 2002 and sent letter dated 11.1.2005 to her conveying that she would be paid salary for the month of January,2005 as per the pay approved by the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab and the excess amount paid to her would be recovered. She, therefore, instituted the instant petition challenging letter dated 11.1.2005 and for directing the respondents to pay her the full gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund etc. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed their written statements supporting the decision taken by them. The writ petitions were admitted on 25.9.2007 and the management of the respondent-College was restrained from making any deduction out of the gratuity payable to the petitioners. At the time of hearing, it was informed that the gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc. have since been released to the petitioners, C.W.P.No.15486 of 2005 -4- .... but since the same was done belatedly, they be allowed interest thereon. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is confined only to the limited aspect of recovery which has been sought to be made on account of excess payment made to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) S.C.T. 333 (P&H) (FB) = 2009(3) P.L.R. 511, to contend that the petitioners had not made any misrepresentation nor had resorted to any fraudulent act when the payment in excess was made to them. He submitted that the petitioners were entitled to the pay scale which was granted to them and there was no stipulation that the same would be subject to approval of the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab which is the stand taken by the respondents to deny the said benefit. He, thus, urged that the recovery cannot be made from the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 supported the decision to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners. However, he could not advance any substantial argument to justify the recovery in the face of the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioners is unsustainable in law. In Budh Ram's case (supra), after examining the entire gamut of judgments on this issue, the Full Bench of this Court laid down in paragraph 10 of the judgment as under:- C.W.P.No.15486 of 2005 -5- .... “10. 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 make 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 C.W.P.No.15486 of 2005 -6- .... 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.” Applying the aforequoted observations to the facts of these cases, it is held that the decision of the respondents to make recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners is unsustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. In so far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount of gratuity, leave encashment etc. was paid after a substantial delay and, therefore, they are entitled to interest thereon for the delayed period, is concerned, I find force in the same as they were not at C.W.P.No.15486 of 2005 -7- .... fault for the delay in payment thereof. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners shall be paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the said benefits became due till the date of final payment. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that a suitable direction may also be given to the respondents to make the payment of the Contributory Provident Fund to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions contained in the Calender of the Panjab University. Having considered the aforementioned submission, I direct the respondents to ensure compliance of the statutory provisions and make payment of the Contributory Provident Fund to the petitioners in accordance thereof. The writ petitions are allowed in the aforementioned terms. July 06,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge