IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15074 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 11, 2011 SEWAK SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RS Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. 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 order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexures P-2), vide which benefit granted to the petitioner on completion of 8/16/24/32 years of service has been withdrawn and recovery has been ordered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contends that the claim of the petitioner is limited to challenge to recovery only. Refixation of pay is not under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the issue has been considered by Full Bench of this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.15074 of 2007 2 Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent any fact before the respondents so as to gain monetary benefits. 5. I have considered the issue. 6. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this petition:- “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 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affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules.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 Civil Writ Petition No.15074 of 2007 3 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.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that indeed there is no material on the record to indicate that the petitioner played fraud or misrepresented facts, so as to get benefits. In such circumstances, the case is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this court rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra). 8. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 9. It is held that the respondents would not have a right to effect recovery of the monetary benefits already released to the petitioner. In case, any recovery has been effected, the same be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. August 11, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?