Punjab-Haryana High Court
B.L. Chimpa vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 26 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128046
CWP-13829-2008 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
842
CWP-13829-2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.09.2024
B.L. Chimpa
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order
dated 11.06.2008, Annexure P-4, whereby without affording the opportunity of
hearing, the recovery has been ordered to be made from the petitioner without
giving any show cause notice.
2. The petitioner had been granted 2nd Acp and while granting the same
by way of refixation of pay, the annual increment was withdrawn on account of
the fact that it was the same date on which both fell due i.e. 01.10.1998. On the
other hand, learned State counsel submits that the ACP was to be given after
completion of the 11 years, subject to the condition, he falls within 20% of the
post in the cadre.
3. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2008, had
stayed the recovery and the learned counsel submits that some amount was even
withheld at the time of retirement. The issue stands covered in favour of the petitioner
so far as the recovery is concerned, by the judgment passed by this Court in Krishan
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128046
CWP-13829-2008 (O&M) - 2-
Kumar Singla vs. State of Punjab and Others1, relevant paras thereof read thus:
"5. 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 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
CWP-11341-2003, decided on 20.09.2010
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128046
CWP-13829-2008 (O&M) - 3-
them."
6. 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, decided on 22.5.2009) reported as
2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents
would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner. In
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 refixation of pay,
however, is maintained."
4. He further refers to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana2, relying on which, in State of Punjab
vs. Rafiq Masih3, it was held that generally, the recovery of amounts paid in
excess are impermissible to be affected.
5. Learned State counsel is unable to controvert the factual position and
draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any
contrary law.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
the judgment passed in Krishan Kumar Singla (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
26.09.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
1995 Supp (1) SCC 18
(2015) 4 SCC 334
3 of 3
