Benefits granted under a mistake cannot be recovered without due process, emphasizing the need for lawful correction of errors.

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the instant O.A., the applicants have prayed for the following relief:-

“8 (a) Quash and set aside the Impugned order dated 14.09.2015.

(b) To declare the action of respondents in not accepting the request of applicant for withdrawal of voluntarily retirement as illegal and issue directions to the respondents to allow withdrawal of application of voluntarily retirement from due date with all consequential benefits.

(c) To declare the action of respondents in not permitting the applicant to withdraw his request for voluntarily retirement and reducing his pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.

(d) To quash and set aside the order dated 16.02.2015 & 11.03.2015 and reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

(e) Award Costs.”

2. The applicants herein are seeking dress allowance. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly states that the present issue has already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chandigarh in O.A. No. 060/01362/2019. He further states that the said order has already attained its finality and the same has been implemented by the respondents. It is also highlighted by the learned counsel that the said decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 19228/2021 on 04.10.2021 in batch of matter, with the following observation:-

Admittedly, the private respondents were working as Class-III and Class-IV employees in MES. They were considered as ‘Industrial Employees’. In pursuance to the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India issued office memorandum dated 2.8.2017 with regard to grant of dress allowance to different categories of Central Government employees. The said office memorandum was reproduced by the Tribunal in Para No.11 of the impugned order dated 5.6.2020. Pursuant to aforesaid office memorandum, the Government of India issued another office memorandum dated 31.8.2017 to the effect that, the dress allowance was to be payable at the rate of `5,000/- per year. Subsequently, vide letter dated 5.6.2018, the Principal Controller of Defence Account (Western Command), Chandigarh (in short ‘Principal Controller’) gave clarification that aforesaid benefit of dress allowance may be extended to civilians of MES including industrial personnel. Further clarification dated 2.8.2018 was given by the aforesaid authority that dress allowance is payable to employees (industrial /non-industrial), who are wearing basic uniform and / or drawing washing allowance. On the basis of the aforesaid office memorandums coupled with the clarifications, the authorities gave benefit of dress allowance to the private respondents and accordingly payment was made to them.

It appears that subsequently, Principal Controller vide letter dated 15.11.2019 informed the concerned authorities that the entitlement of dress allowance to industrial employees of MES is yet to be decided and he further directed that amount of dress allowance paid if any to aforesaid employees during the period from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 may be recovered immediately. On the basis of aforesaid order, the concerned authorities were directed to effect recovery of due amount from the concerned employees, vide letter dated 18.11.2019.

It is not the case of the petitioners that the private respondents got aforesaid benefit of dress allowance by committing fraud or by misrepresenting the facts. From the perusal of letters dated 5.6.2018 and 2.8.2018, it transpires that before grant of dress allowance to the private respondents and other similarly situated employees, the concerned authorities took conscious decision regarding the same. It being so the petitioners cannot now effect recovery of the amount of dress allowance already paid to the private respondents in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih ’s case (supra) which clearly debars the Gove