Punjab-Haryana High CourtRam Dhari Jatain vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 May, 2011Author:Ajai LambaBench:Ajai LambaCWP No. 4996 of 2006                                                        1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                                                  CWP No. 4996 of 2006
                                        DATE OF DECISION: May 09, 2011


Ram Dhari Jatain                                      .........PETITIONER(S)

                                  VERSUS


State of Haryana and another                          ......RESPONDENT(S)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate,
         for the petitioner(s).

          Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)1.        This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari, quashing Orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 dated 03.06.2004 and

04.06.2004 respectively. Perusal of order Annexure P-1 indicates that pay

of the petitioner had been revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. On revision of pay,

recovery has been directed from the petitioner.2.        Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that refixation of pay

is accepted by the petitioner. There is no challenge to refixation. The relief

is confined to challenge to recovery.3.        Learned counsel further contends that petitioner did not enable the

respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner initially. The petitioner did not

play any fraud and did not misrepresent any fact so as to take undue

advantage/monetary benefits from the respondents.In such circumstances,CWP No. 4996 of 2006                                                        2the respondents have no right to effect recovery in view of law laid down by

Full Bench of this Court inBudh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana &

Others(Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008, reported as 2009(3) PLR 511.4.        A perusal of the reply indicates that inadvertently, the pay of the

petitioner had been refixed. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner

played fraud or misrepresented facts so as to have monetary benefits.5.        I have considered the issue.6.        The following needs to be extracted fromBudh 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 theCWP No. 4996 of 2006                                                  3employee 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 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."CWP No. 4996 of 2006                                                       47.In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms ofBudh

Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others(Civil Writ Petition No.2799

of 2008, reported as 2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, it is directed that

respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner. In

the meantime, in the interregnum period if any recovery has been effected,

the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt

of a certified copy of this order. The action of the respondents in regard to

refixation of pay, however, is maintained.09.05.2011                                                  (AJAI LAMBA)
shivani                                                           JUDGE

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?