IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17205 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Maina Sandal ........Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner retired from the government service from the post of S.S.Mistress on 31.07.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. The retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been paid. This petition has accordingly been filed seeking a direction for payment of the pensionary benefits along with interest. Reply has been filed today. It has been stated that provisional pension including arrears amounting to ` 3,97,928/- and gratuity amounting to ` 2,47,286/-, total amount ` 6,45,214/- have already been paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 24.09.2010 and another amount of gratuity amounting to ` 1,41,559/- has been paid vide cheque No.075729 dated 18.01.2011. The respondents have, however, deducted an amount of ` 3,65,944/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner and rest of the G.P.F. and leave encashment has been released. CWP No.17205 of 2010 -2- From the reply filed and the impugned order, it appears that this deduction has been made from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on account of alleged wrong payment to the petitioner. There is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud for release of such benefit. The controversy in the present case is fully covered by a full bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others decided on 22.5.2009 wherein following observations have been made:- “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 relief 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 wheat 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....... We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding CWP No.17205 of 2010 -3- 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....”. This recovery is thus impermissible in law. In so far as the question of re-fixation is concerned, the State has already appointed a Committee for consideration of such kind of cases pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.03.2010 in C.W.P. No.16323 of 2008 and other connected matters. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. Impugned recovery shall stand quashed. Amount, if any, recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner. The issue regarding re-fixation shall be referred to the Committee, constituted by the State. Needless to say the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the statutory rate for delayed payments of gratuity and G.P.F. The interest shall commence after three months from the date of retirement. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% on the delayed payment. Disposed of. 24.01.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE