Karamjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jul 2010
- Bench
- AJAI LAMBA
Outcome
Allowed
writ petition is allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 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 case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in…
- Para 1111. I have considered the issue. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (su- pra), 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…
- Para 1313. In view of the common prayer of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed in limited 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…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This 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-1 dated 17.07.2009 to the extent it orders recovery from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue has been considered by Full Bench of this Court while dealing with Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the peti- tioner would be satisfied if the petition is disposed of in terms of decision of this court rendered in CWP 697 of 2010 (Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 2.3.2010.
Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advo- cate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. CWP No. 13235 of 2010 2
Requisite number of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents.
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 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 case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra) and, therefore, the matter be decided accordingly.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the re- spondents have not been able to verify whether the petitioner has played fraud or not and, therefore, the facts need to be verified. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, states that the matter be disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in Kaur Chand's case (supra).
I have considered the issue. The following needs to be extracted from Budh Ram's case (su- pra), 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 com- mitted by the authorities, they are entitled to recover the bene- fit that has been received by the employee on the basis of any such erroneous grant. We say so primarily because if the em- ployee 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, in- equitable and harsh for the Government to direct recovery of the excess amount simply because on a true and correct inter- pretation of the rules, such a benefit was not due. It does not CWP No. 13235 of 2010 3 require much imagination to say that additional monetary benefits going to an employee may not always result in accu- mulation of his resources and savings. Such a benefit may of- ten be utilized on smaller luxuries of life which the employee and his family may not have been able to afford had the bene- fit 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 ex- penditure 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 interpreta- tion nor have they committed any fraud, misrepresentation, de- ception to obtain the grant of such benefit, the benefit so ex- tended may be stopped for the future, but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them.”
Operative part
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 peti- tioner 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 pe- riod of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (7). Since the respondents have not filed any counter-reply/af- fidavit, 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.
In view of the common prayer of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed in limited 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.
28.07.2010 shivani 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is allowed in part
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 28 Jul 2010. 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.