IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10135 of 2006. Date of Decision : April 26, 2010. Kashmira Singh Gill and another ...... Petitioners . Versus. Union of India and others ..... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ravi Badyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ram Chander, Central Government Counsel, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioner does not press the challenge made to the vires of Rule 49(2)(a) and (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as applicable to the BSF Personnels. He contends that the petitioner was granted the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and others Versus Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 2125. He contends that in the light of the re-fixation of pay of the petitioner, the petitioner was granted revised pension accordingly, but subsequently the said order of enhanced pension of the petitioner stands withdrawn. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has challenged the withdrawal of the benefit of revised pension in the writ petition and this Court, while issuing notice of motion, had stayed the recovery of C.W.P. No. 10135 of 2006. -2- amounts, which had been paid to the petitioner due to refixation of the pension and the said stay is in operation till date. His submission is that in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others Vol. CL V-(2009-3) PLR, 511, wherein it has been held by this Court that, where the benefits sought to be recovered from the employees, were granted to them on the basis of 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 and the benefits so received or obtained by an employee, is not on the basis of any fraud or mis-representation or any other act of deception relatable to the employee, cannot be recovered from the petitioner. He contends that there is no allegation that the petitioner had in any way committed any fraud or mis-representation or had committed any other act of deception, which would dis-entitle him to retain the benefit. The said recovery which is proposed to be made from the petitioner, cannot be made and, therefore, prays that this relief may be granted to the petitioner. The contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner could not be disputed by counsel for respondents. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others (supra), and am of the considered view that the prayer as made by counsel for the petitioner is fully covered by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court, wherein it has been held in para-12 as follow : “12. 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 C.W.P. No. 10135 of 2006. -3- 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 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 many not have been able to afford had the benefit not been extended to him. The employees can well argue that if it was know 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 C.W.P. No. 10135 of 2006. -4- 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, the Order dated 15.05.2006 (Annexure-P- 13) is hereby upheld, but the amount already paid to the petitioner is directed to be not recovered from him. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 26, 2010. sjks.