M.S. Gill & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Counsel for the petitioners submits that firstly, the petitioners being eligible at that time as per order/letters Annexures-P-1 to Annexure-P-3 for grant of bonus, were rightly paid the bonus amounts. In any case, if subsequently with the revision of pay scales, the petitioners were rendered ineligible, recovery cannot now be ordered to be made from the petitioners as no mis-representation, fraud, or mis-interpretation was committed on behalf of the petitioners, which would render them liable for recovery. For this contention, he relies upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and other others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T. 333. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in para-10 of the judgment. He on this basis prays for quashing of recovery, which is being sought to be effected from the petitioners. On the other hand, although, the factual aspect as has been depicted above is not disputed by counsel for respondent. However, he submits that a perusal of the letter dated 07.10.1989 (Annexure-P-3), which is the basis for grant of bonus to the petitioners, it has been categorically stated therein that the upper ceiling limit of Rs. 2,500/- per month as on 31.03.1989 will be applicable irrespective of whether the emoluments are drawn in the C.W.P. No. 18539 of 1991. -3- pre-revised or revised scale of pay. He on this basis submits that after revision of pay scales, the pay of the petitioners having exceeded Rs. 2,500/- per month, the petitioners were not entitled to the payment of bonus as per said order/letters, and, therefore, the recovery of bonus sought to be effected from the petitioners, is fully justified and in accordance with law. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The admitted position as has been depicted hereinabove leaves no manner of doubt that on the day, when the bonus was paid to the petitioners, they were fully eligible, as per order and letters (Annexure-P-1 to Annexure-P-3) and were, therefore, rightly granted the said benefit. Although, the hurdle does exist in Annexure-P-3, but in the light of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others (supra), the case of the petitioners being that they had neither mis-represented nor committed any fraud or had taken any undue benefit, for which recovery of bonus be effected from them on the date when the amount was released to them. The recovery sought to be effected from the petitioners would fall within the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others (supra) in para-10 of the judgment, which reads as follows :- “10. 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 C.W.P. No. 18539 of 1991. -4- 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 C.W.P. No. 18539 of 1991. -5- 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 Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others (supra), and the case of the petitioners being fully covered by the condition culled out in the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment of this Court, the recovery, which is now being sought to be effected from the petitioners, cannot be said to be justified and in accordance with law. The present petition is allowed. The recovery, which is being sought to be effected from the petitioners is hereby quashed. Ordered accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 12, 2010. sjks.