Ajai Lamba, J.@mdashFile is returned to the learned counsel to enable him to make correction in Annexure P2 under his initials.
2. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to Annexure P1 and P2 dated10.8.2010 and 27.11.2010,
respectively to the extent they direct recovery from the Petitioner.
3. Annexure P1 brings out the fact that the Petitioner had taken junior secondary teacher benefit to which the Petitioner was not entitled. In such
circumstances pay of the Petitioner is required to be re fixed. Vide Annexure P2 recovery has been ordered to be effected from the Petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that re fixation of pay is accepted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not play any fraud or
misrepresent facts to get monetary benefits. The Respondents might have committed an error in fixing the pay of the Petitioner initially, however,
the Petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. Insuch circumstances, the Respondents cannot 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) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that the Petitioner would be satisfied if the petition is disposed of in terms of decision of this
Court rendered in (Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and others), CWP 697 of 2010 decided on 2.3.2010.
5. Notice of motion.
6. On the asking of the Court Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number
of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned Counsel for the Respondents.
7. Learned Counsel for the parties pray that the matter be disposed of at this stage itself, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent State contends that the Respondents have not been able to verify whether the Petitioner has played fraud
or not. In regard to recovery, learned Counsel for the Respondents has not been able to cite any judgment contrary to the judgments cited by
learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, states that pay of the Petitioner had been wrongly fixed and
therefore, the Respondents have a right to recover the additional benefits released to the Petitioner.
9. I have considered the issue.
10. 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 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.
11. 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 respondents 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 consequential 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 reply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the
Petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/order played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. 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.