Shri Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 17 August, 2009

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                            CHANDIGARH.




                                       Civil Writ Petition No. 9834 of 2009

                               DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 17, 2009




SHRI HARJIT SINGH

                                                     ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

                                                     .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.



AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the

petitioner of the amount released to the petitioner as special increments.

After retirement of the petitioner, the pensionary benefits have been

withheld so as to effect the recovery. Challenge in this regard is to

Annexures P-2 and P-3, under which recovery has been ordered to be
Civil Writ Petition No. 9834 of 2009 2

effected from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

has been working as Driller since 1.8.1981, whereafter he was promoted

as Chargeman on 1.4.1987. Due to exigencies of service required on

Ranjit Sagar Dam, certain special increments were given to the petitioner

and other persons. The petitioner retired as Chargeman on 29.2.2008. On

27.10.2008, vide order (Annexure P-2), the respondents have ordered

recovery of the special increments released in favour of the petitioner.

Vide order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), a further sum of Rs.15,540/-

has been ordered to be recovered from the pensionary benefits, also on

account of withdrawal of special increments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised

in this petition is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 27.5.2009

rendered in CWP 5568 of 2008 (Charan Dass and others v. State of

Punjab and others).

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to

dispute the facts, as given out above.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been

able to distinguish the judgment rendered in the case of Charan Dass

(supra).

I have considered the issue.

The relevant portion from the judgment rendered in the case

of Charan Dass (supra) reads as under:-

“It is admitted case of the parties that the work
charge period is to be counted as qualifying period for the
grant of pensionary benefits and thus the emoluments
Civil Writ Petition No. 9834 of 2009 3

drawn by the employee as work charge employee had to
be considered as also the period when the employee
served in work charge capacity. It is admitted case of the
parties that the benefit of retrenchment increments and
special increments was granted to the employees during
the period they were serving in work charge capacity
without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The
benefit allowed to the petitioners is, however, sought to be
withdrawn after take over and regularisation by the State
Government with effect from 13.3.1996. The
retrenchment increments were allowed to bring their
salary and emoluments at par with other employees in the
revised pay scale, keeping in view their last drawn salary
as retrenchees. No reasons have been given in the reply as
to how such benefit is impermissible or illegal. The State,
however, has attempted to justify its action regarding
withdrawal of special and retrenchment increments.
Admittedly, special increments were granted from time to
time to some of the employees/petitioners for their alleged
good work. There was no uniform policy and benefit of
special increments was given on selective basis. In so far
as the retrenchment increments are concerned, there
cannot be any second opinion that the benefit was granted
to bring their wages at par under the revised pay scale
and that too before their take over by the State
Government.

As regards the grant of special increments is
concerned, it was selectively granted from person to
person and is not justified. However, one fact remains
common in regard to grant of both the benefits i.e.
retrenchment increments and special increments that the
said benefits were conferred upon the petitioners without
any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The issue is
squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this
Civil Writ Petition No. 9834 of 2009 4

Court passed in CWP No.2799 of 2008 alongwith other
connected matters (Budh Ram and others vs. State of
Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. The case of the
petitioners falls in category ii) wherein following
observations have been made:-

“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……
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
Civil Writ Petition No. 9834 of 2009 5

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….”

In view of the above, the respondents are not
entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners either
on account of retrenchment increments or special
increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the
respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by
reducing the special increment only. Consequently the pay
of the petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those
employees who have already retired from service, the
retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two
months. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on
the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the
statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6%
on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory
interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from
the retiral benefits or the salary of the petitioners shall be
refunded within the aforesaid period.

Ordered accordingly. Disposed of.”

Since the matter is covered by the judgment rendered in the

case of Charan Dass (supra), a portion of which has been extracted above,

this petition is allowed in the same terms.

August 17, 2009                                         ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                            JUDGE


1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?