C.W.P. No.9113 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9113 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 10.09.2010 Dal Chand and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Present: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr. Suveer Sheorkand, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. *** The petitioner was appointed as Horticulture Supervisor in Haryana Development Authority (in short 'HUDA') in the year 1984 on ad hoc basis. The petitioner was lateron regularized. The Haryana Government issued policy dated 02.06.2004 regarding counting of ad hoc and work charge services for the purpose of benefit of grant of additional increment on completion of 8/18 years of service and higher standard pay scales after 10/20 years of service. In view of the above policy decision, the pay scale of all the petitioners were re-fixed vide letter dated 09.11.2004 in the pay scale of 950-20-1150—8-20-1500 (w.e.f 01.01.1986) and on completion of 10 years of service, the higher standard scale of Rs.1200- 2040 w.e.f 01.03.1994. Petitioners were also granted the benefit of the revised pay scale w.e.f 01.01.1996 placing them in the first ACP scale of Rs.4000-100-4800-SB-100-6000 and futher in the second ACP scale of Rs.5000-150-7100-SB-150-7850 w.e.f 01.03.2004. Vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2009, the pay scales granted to the petitioners vide letter dated 09.11.2004 have been modified and they have been placed in the first ACP scale of Rs.4000-100-4800-SB- C.W.P. No.9113 of 2009 -2- 100-6000 w.e.f 01.09.2003 and consequently recovery has been ordered against them. The petitioners have challenged this order in the present writ petition 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 vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.5.2009 It is not the case of the respondents that the benefit was granted to the petitioner on account of any mis-representation or fraud. The benefit was granted on bonafide intepretation of the government instructions without any mis interpretation on the report of the petitioner. The relevant observations made in the judgment of full bench of this Court are as under: “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 C.W.P. No.9113 of 2009 -3- 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 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, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. The impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 30.03.2009 is hereby set aside to the extent of recovery. Recovery, if any, made from the petitioner shall be refunded to them within two months. Septmber 10, 2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) G.Arora JUDGE C.W.P. No.9113 of 2009 -4- on account of wrong re-fixation of pay scale and contended the adhoc services is not to be counted towards regular service for the grant of ACP or higher standard pay scales on completion of 8/18 years and 10/20 years of service respectively and thus, benefit were wrongly granted to the petitioner which has been with drawn vide the impugned order.