IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12154 of 2006 Date of Decision: May 25, 2011 Baljit Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate, for Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure P-4) vide which pay of the petitioner has been refixed and recovery has been ordered on withdrawal of benefit of two increments. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that challenge to order Annexure P-4 is only in regard to recovery ordered from the petitioner. Refixed pay is acceptable to the CWP No.12154 of 2006 [2] petitioner. 3. Learned counsel contends that petitioner did not play fraud or misrepresent facts to enable the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents have no right to effect recovery in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, in view of pleadings in Para 6 of the reply, contends that benefit of two increments was granted to the petitioner erroneously and inadvertently. Learned counsel has not been able to point out that petitioner played fraud or misrepresented facts so as to take monetary benefits. 6. In view of the stand of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute that the case is covered by decision rendered by this Court in Budh Ram’s case (supra). 7. I have considered the issue. 8. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this peti- tion:- “It is in the light of the above pronouncement, no longer open to the authorities granting the benefits, no matter er- roneously, to contend that even when the employee con- cerned was not at fault and was not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the authorities, they are enti- tled 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 CWP No.12154 of 2006 [3] the erroneous grant of benefit to him/her, it would induce in him the belief that the same was indeed due and pay- able. Acting on that belief the employee would, as any other person placed in his position arrange his affairs ac- cordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be with- drawn 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 di- rect 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 holding that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or appli- cation of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions have not in any way contributed to such erroneous inter- pretation nor have they committed any fraud, misrepresen- tation, 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.” 9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner. In the meantime, in the interregnum period if any recovery has been effected, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The action of the respondents in regard refixation of pay, however, is maintained. CWP No.12154 of 2006 [4] (AJAI LAMBA) May 25, 2011 JUDGE avin