Ram Chander v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. 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…
- Para 66. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh 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…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. K.K. Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order Annexure P-9 dated 25.02.2005, vide which it has been directed that recovery of ` 47,978 be effected from the petitioner in installments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 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 & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008), reported as 2009(3) PLR 511.
It is the admitted position of the respondents in para no. 8 of the written statement that inadvertently, the pay of the petitioner was wrongly CWP No. 3403 of 2005 2 fixed. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute that case is covered by Budh Ram's case (supra).
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 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 CWP No. 3403 of 2005 3 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.”
Operative part
In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh 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 CWP No. 3403 of 2005 4 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.
23.05.2011 shivani (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of Budh
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 23 May 2011. The bench was AJAI LAMBA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.