Krishan Kumar Singla vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—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 dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-3) and 1.4.2003 (Annexure P-6) to the extent they direct recovery from the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that refixation of pay is accepted by the petitioner. 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, the respondents have no right to effect recovery in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009) reported as 2009 (3) PLR 511.

Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed. On refixation of pay, certain amount is required to be recovered from the petitioner and therefore, the impugned action is proposed. In the context of argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by Budh Ram''s case (supra), learned Counsel for the respondents admits that indeed the issue would be covered.

I have considered the issue.

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 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 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 the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009) 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 refixation of pay, however, is maintained.