CWP-5783 of 2 IN 205 CWP-5783-200 Rawail Singh vs CWP-201-200 Usha Kapila and CWP-3354-200 Ram Singh vs. S CWP-3966-200 Rajinder Kaur CWP-9591-200 Smt. Surjit Anan CORAM: HO Present: Mr Mr for Mr *** AMAN CHAUD 1. The disposed of toge 2. Cha of pay fixation by the Division 08.01.2004 in C 3. Lea working on Cla effected in wak of 2002 and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGAR Date of 2002 (O&M) ngh vs. State of Punjab and others 2004 (O&M) ila and others vs. State of Punjab and o 2008 (O&M) h vs. State of Punjab and others 2006 (O&M) Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others 2005 (O&M) it Anand vs. State of Punjab and others : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN ***** Mr. RK Arora, Advocate and Mr. Inayat Khullar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG, P ***** HAUDHARY, J. (Oral) These cases involve similar issu of together. Challenge in the present petitions ation was withdrawn and recovery w ivision Bench vide orders dated 27. 4 in CWP-201-2004, 15.06.2005 in CW Learned counsel, on instructions on Class-III posts, restricts their pray n wake of fact that there was neithe PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH ate of decision: 23.01.2025 b and others others MAN CHAUDHARY AG, Punjab. r issues and therefore, are being s is to the order whereby benefit very was ordered, which was stayed ed 27.05.2003 in CWP-5783-2002, 5 in CWP-9591-2005. from the petitioners, who were ir prayer to only recovery to be not neither any mis-representation nor 1 eing nefit ayed 002, were e not nor ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.27 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5783 of 2 fraud and in pu Punjab, CWP been carried out 4. Le 20.01.2017, whe to Class-III and Kumar Singla on 20.09.2010, paras whereof re of 2002 and connected cases in pursuance of the judgment in Re CWP-17005-1989, decided on 01.03.1 out. Learned counsel relies on 7, wherein it has been provided that re II and Class-IV employee, may not be ingla vs. State of Punjab and Other 2010, SLP against which was dismisse of read thus: “5. The following needs to b case (supra), for considerati petition : "It is in the light of longer open to the au no matter erroneously the employee concerne in any way responsib by the authorities the benefit that has been the basis of any such primarily because if th for the erroneous gra would induce in him indeed due and payab employee would, as a position arrange his may not have done if being granted to him is subsequent point of ti to be the correct inte rules. Having induced and made him change affairs in a manner tha done, it would be unf the Government to d amount simply beca interpretation of the r due. It does not require additional monetary b may not always res Rewail Singh etc. vs. State of 1.03.1995 that the pay fixation had on the policy/instructions dated that recovery of excess amount paid not be made as also held in Krishan Others, CWP-11341-2003, decided ismissed on 05.12.2014, the relevant ds to be extracted from Budh Ram's ideration of the issue raised in this ht of the above pronouncement. no the authorities granting the benefits, eously, to contend that even when ncerned was not at fault and was not ponsible for the mistake committed ies they are entitled to recover the been received by the employee on y such erroneous grant. We say so se if the employee is not responsible grant of benefit to him/her, it n him the belief that the same was payable. Acting on that belief the d, as any other person placed in his e his affairs accordingly which he one if he had known that the benefit him is likely to be withdrawn at any t of time on what may be then said ct interpretation and application of nduced that belief in the employee change his position and arrange his ner that he would not otherwise have be unfair, inequitable and harsh for t to direct recovery of the excess because on a true and correct f the rules, such a benefit was not require much imagination to say that tary benefits going to an employee ys result in accumulation of his 2 te of had ated paid shan ided vant am's this t. no efits, hen s not itted r the e on y so sible r, it was f the n his h he nefit t any said n of oyee e his have h for cess rrect s not that oyee his ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.27 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5783 of 2 5. A g Daniel vs. Stat Haryana2 and Court held tha impermissible to 1 2022 SCC OnLin 2 1995 Supp (1) SC 3 (2015) 4 SCC 33 of 2002 and connected cases resources and savings utilized on smaller employee and his fam afford had the benefit employees can well a them that the addition and would be recovere not have committed expenditure in their da their coat according therefore, no hesitatio employees who are extended to them on application of any r instructions have not i erroneous interpretati any fraud, misrepresen grant of such benefit, t stopped for the future to the employees cann 6. In view of the above, this Budh Ram & Others vs. Sta Writ Petition No.2799 of reported as 2009(3) PLR 51 that respondents would hav from the petitioner. In the m period if any recovery has b be refunded to the petitioner of a certified copy of th respondents in regard refi maintained.” A gainful reference can be made . State of Kerala1, wherein by relyin and State of Punjab vs. Rafiq M ld that generally, the recovery of sible to be affected. OnLine SC 536 (1) SCC 18 CC 334 avings. Such a benefit may often be aller luxuries of life which the is family may not have been able to enefit not been extended to him. The well argue that if it was known to dditional benefit is only temporary covered back from them, they would itted themselves to any additional heir daily affairs and would have cut ording to their cloth. We have, sitation in holding that in case the o are recipient of the benefits m on an erroneous interpretation or any rule, regulation, circular and e not in any way contributed to such pretation nor have they committed presentation, deception to obtain the nefit, the benefit so extended may be future, but the amount already paid s cannot be recovered from them." e, this petition is allowed in terms of s. State of Haryana & Others (Civil 9 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009) LR 511. Accordingly, it is directed ld have no right to effect recovery n the meantime, in the interregnum has been effected, the amount shall itioner within four months of receipt of this order. The action of the d refixation of pay, however, is made to the judgment in Thomas relying on Sahib Ram vs. State of fiq Masih3, Hon’ble the Supreme y of amounts paid in excess are 3 n be the le to . The n to orary ould ional e cut ave, e the efits n or and such itted n the y be paid s of Civil 009) ected very num shall ceipt the r, is mas te of reme are ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.27 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5783 of 2 6. Lea controvert the f aforementioned 7. In v terms of the judg 8. Pho 23.01.2025 ashok Wh Wh of 2002 and connected cases Learned State counsel despite be t the factual position and draw out tioned judgments or cite any contrary l In view of the aforesaid, the prese he judgment passed in Krishan Kuma Photocopy of this order be placed o (AM Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : ite best efforts has been unable to out any distinctive aspects in the trary law. present petitions are disposed of in Kumar Singla (supra). laced on the connected files. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No 4 le to the of in ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.27 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document