Civil Writ Petition No.19966 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 Jaswinder Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT:- Mr.D.D.Bansal Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.C.Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioners were working as Junior Assistants, Chief Pharmacist and Nursing Sister in the respondent department. They were appointed on different dates as mentioned in para No.2 of the writ petition. They were also granted selection grade as indicated therein. The petitioners were given the benefit of proficiency step up of 8/16 years of service. Respondent No.3 has issued orders (Annexures P1 to P8) for effecting recovery from the petitioner in instalments for alleged excess draw of emoluments on account of wrong payment of benefit of proficiency step up. These orders have been passed consequent upon the objection raised by the Audit Party. The petitioners are aggrieved with the aforesaid recovery orders. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the recovery is being effected on the basis of the objection raised by the Audit Party. It is, however, admitted that the benefit of proficiency step up was Civil Writ Petition No.19966 of 2008 2 given to the petitioners on account of wrong interpretation of the Government Notification. However, there is absolutely no averment or pleading that the petitioners were responsible for grant of proficiency step up by any mis-representation or fraud. The issue is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.5.2009 passed in CWP No.2799 of 2008 wherein following observations have been made:- “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 Civil Writ Petition No.19966 of 2008 3 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 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 above, no recovery could be effected from the Civil Writ Petition No.19966 of 2008 4 petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned recovery orders (Annexures P1 to P8) are hereby quashed. It is, however, directed that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioners, the same shall be refunded to them within three months. (Permod Kohli) 7.9.2009 Judge AS