IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 8, 2009 CHARANJIT SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 17.9.2008 and 22.10.2008, Annexures P-1 and P-3, respectively. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) indicates that the Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation (RWS) Circle, Mansa, in reference to Special Audit Report, addressed the memo to petitioner No.1. Civil Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2008 2 Petitioner No.1 has been conveyed that his Service Book had been checked. On checking the Service Book, objections were raised by the Audit Party to the effect that the petitioner had been given promotional scales after 24/32 years of service erroneously and, thus, excess amount paid to the petitioner is recoverable. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-3) indicates that the Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation (RWS), Mansa Circle, Mansa, addressed the memo to petitioner No.1, thereby conveying that the reply filed by petitioner No.1 was not satisfactory and objections raised by the Audit department were required to be upheld. The benefits given under the Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 24/32 years of service were required to be recovered and, therefore, petitioner No.1 has been asked to furnish clarification. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners confine their claim only in challenge to recovery. The parent order under which the benefit has been withdrawn, has been accepted by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the benefits have been released in favour of the petitioners, by an error committed by the respondents, they could not be recovered as the release of benefits had not been actuated by the petitioners playing fraud or any misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioners. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue would be covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. state Civil Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2008 3 of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that because the challenge is only to recovery, indeed, the matter would be covered by the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in Budh Ram's case (supra). I have considered the issue. In Budh Ram's case (supra), the second question for determination was as under:- ii)Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered were granted on the basis of a bonafide mistake committed by the authority granting the same while applying or interpreting a provision contained in the service rule,regulation or any other memo or circular authorizing such grant regardless whether or not grant of benefits involved the performance of higher or more onerous duties by the employee concerned;” While considering the aforesaid question, the following has been held:- “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 Civil Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2008 4 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 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 Civil Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2008 5 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.” Considering the law laid down by this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra), the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recoveries from the petitioners. Consequently, it is further directed that whatever amount has been recovered in the interregnum period, the same would be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. October 8, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?