IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10205 of 2007 Date of Decision: May 18, 2011 Raj Kumari .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate, for Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ, directing the respondents not to effect recovery from the family pension account of the petitioner on the pretext that petitioner has been paid excess amount. 2. It has been pleaded in Para 6 of the petition that for the month of February 2006, the bank (respondent No.4) did not CWP No.10205 of 2007 [2] pay any amount towards pension to the petitioner. When petitioner asked the bank, she was informed that they are recovering the amount as per directions of the Government Department. Reason for recovery, however, has not been disclosed to the petitioner. It has specifically been pleaded that petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent facts so as to take monetary benefits. In such circumstances, the case would be covered by 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. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that reply has not been filed in the case and therefore, no statement can be given to the effect that petitioner did not play fraud so as to get monetary benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the petition is disposed of in terms of decision of this Court rendered in CWP 697 of 2010 (Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 2.3.2010. 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 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- CWP No.10205 of 2007 [3] 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 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.” 7. Relying on Budh Ram's case (supra), this Court in Kaur Chand's case (supra), has held in the following terms:- “(6). Following the dictum in Budh Ram's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed in part; the action of the respon- dents in ordering recovery of the excess payments received by the petitioner as a result of Stepping-up of his pay or grant of ACP is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of his pay and conse- quential re-determination of the retiral benefits are upheld. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (7). Since the respondents have not filed any counter-re- ply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records CWP No.10205 of 2007 [4] and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepre- sented the facts and/order played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a pe- riod of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 8. In view of the fact that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by judgment rendered in Kaur Chand’s case (supra), this petition is allowed in the same terms, in terms of the judgment dated 2.3.2010 rendered in CWP 697 of 2010 (Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and others), portion whereof has been extracted above. (AJAI LAMBA) May 18, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?