Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.5.1993 (Annexure P -20), whereby, recovery of house rent allowance paid to the petitioners was sought to be effected from them with retrospective effect from 1.9.1988.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) SCT 333. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Petitioners were granted house rent allowance by the Management. However, vide order dated 6.5.1993 (Annexure P -20), it was decided that the college in question was not entitled to claim house rent allowance. Consequently, recovery was sought to be effected from the employees of the college w.e.f. 1.9.1988. In Budh Ram's case (supra), it was held as under: - 10. 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affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules.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 them.
(3.) THUS , this case is covered by the decision of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra).;