IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 12400 of 2004
DATE OF DECISION: September 08, 2009
Satpal .........PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate,
for Mr. S.P. Laher, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of 9 petitions viz. CWP No. 12400 of
2004 titled Satpal Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 11844 of 2005
titled Harnek Singh Vs. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 19368 of
2005 titled Gopal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 2225 of
2006 titled Gian Watti Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 9687 of
2007 titled Rishi Ram Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 9692 of
2007 titled Bishan Dass Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 9693 of
2007 titled Ram Paul Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 9694 of
2007 titled Ram Murti Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 9700 of
2007 titled Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others. For reference to
record, CWP No. 12400 of 2004 titled Satpal Vs. State of Punjab and
Others is being taken up.
C.W.P. No. 12400 of 2004 -2-
This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing condition no. 12 contained in Annexure P-2 which provides as
under:-
“Recovery of retrenchee increment Rs. 73,838/- may be recovered
out of DCRG.
Prayer further is to quash order of recovery Annexure P-3
endorsed on 02.07.2002 whereunder it has been given out that in pursuance
of Accountant General letter dated 10.06.2002, sanction is accorded for
payment of gratuity to the petitioner after deducting amount of recovery on
account of retrenchee benefit increments.
It has been pleaded that the petitioner was initially appointed as
Tractor Operator on 01.12.1965 and worked as such till 28.02.1978 on Beas
Satluj Link Project. The petitioner was discharged on 28.02.1978. The
petitioner thereafter was adjusted on Thein Dam Project, Punjab, also
known as Ranjit Sagar Dam Shahpur Kandi Township, District Gurdaspur
on the post of Dozer Operator. The petitioner joined on 21.12.1994. The
petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2001. Pension of the
petitioner has been calculated, however, Rs. 73,838/- has been withheld on
the pretext of recovery of amount of excess payment made by the
department inadvertently as the retrenchee benefit increments. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the issues in this petition and other
petitions in the bunch would be covered by decision of this Court dated
27.05.2009 rendered in CWP No. 5568 of 2008, Charan Dass and Others
Vs. State of Punjab and Others.
C.W.P. No. 12400 of 2004 -3-
Learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly concedes that
the issues raised in this petition and other petitions which are under
consideration is covered by the judgment rendered in Charan Dass case
(supra).
The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment 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 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
C.W.P. No. 12400 of 2004 -4-
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 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
C.W.P. No. 12400 of 2004 -5-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
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
C.W.P. No. 12400 of 2004 -6-
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.”
In view of the conceded position that the issue is covered by
Charan Dass case (supra), this petition is allowed in terms and to the extent
of decision dated 27.05.2009 rendered in CWP No. 5568 of 2008, Charan
Dass and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others.
08.09.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
