- (1.) Notice of motion. Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controvers\involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at motion stage itself without insisting for reply.
(2.) The petitioner is presently serving as Head Draftsman. Aggrieved of the re-fixation of his pay scale and consequential recovery, the petitioner filed CWP No. 5551 of 2000 in this Court. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.7.2008 whereby the order impugned therein came to be quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Government for reconsideration by observing principles of natural justice. As a consequence of the aforesaid directions, the respondents again reconsidered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 10.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed at various stages and vide a separate order/communication dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-11), an amount of Rs. 1,13,175/- has been ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the re-fixation as also the recovery.
(3.) From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the benefit was given on the basis of some government instructions. The controversy regarding recovery is settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CWP No. 2799 of 2008 alongwith other connected matters (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 3 SCT 333) decided on 22.5.2009 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 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 subsquent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of 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....";