238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-38039-2018 Date of decision:20.02.2025 TARSEM SINGH ..Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.5.

Ms. Shruti, AAG Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 20.07.2018, wherein recovery of the amount of grade pay has been ordered from the petitioner, which this Court had stayed on 21.12.2018, in view of the law laid down in the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih etc. 2015 (4) SCC 334.

2. Petitioner who was working as Junior Assistant retired on 31.03.2012, however, on 30.03.2015 was issued a letter by the respondent- department stating that the grade pay of Rs.3000/- has been wrongly granted instead of Rs.2800/- and accordingly after two years vide letter dated 23.08.2017, respondent No.5, Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti sought to recover Rs.83,296/- on account of wrong calculation of pay benefits. Learned counsel states there was neither any misrepresentation nor fraud and thus relies on the policy/instructions dated 20.01.2017, wherein it has been provided that recovery of excess amount paid to Class-III and Class-IV employee, may not be made as also held by this Court in Krishan Kumar Singla vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP-11341-2003, decided on 20.09.2010, SLP against which was dismissed on 05.12.2014, the relevant paras whereof 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 gra