The Court allowed the writ petition allowing recovery of family pension paid due to erroneous rule interpretation, citing Budh Ram and Kaur Chand precedents, holding that recovery is barred if the employee was not at fault or fraudulent.
The orders directing recovery of family pension payable to the petitioners were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.14989 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 26, 2011
NIRMAL KUMARI & ANR.
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. OP Gabba, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
Civil Writ Petition No.14989 of 2007
2
“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affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be
Civil Writ Petition No.14989 of 2007
3
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 them.”
“(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
Civil Writ Petition No.14989 of 2007
4
received by the petitioner 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 period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(7). Since the respondents have not filed any counterreply/affidavit, 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.”
parties, the petition is allowed in limited terms, in terms of the judgment rendered in Kaur Chand's case (supra), portion whereof has been extracted above.
April 26, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the recovery of family pension amounts paid based on erroneous interpretation of rules can be quashed when the petitioners were not at fault.
Whether this petition should be disposed of based on the precedent in Kaur Chand's case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶8
Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511.
Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶5
Civil Writ Petition No.697 of 2010 (Kaur Chand v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 2.3.2010
NIRMAL KUMARI & ANR.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
