IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4456 of 2011 Date of decision : 11.03.2011 Balwinder Kaur … Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.OP Gabba, Advocate for the petitioner. Permod Kohli, J. Notice of motion. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Copy of writ petition has been supplied to the State counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself without insisting for the reply. Petitioner has retired from service on 31.3.2010 as Senior Assistant from the office of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Construction Division, Canal Colony, Ferozepur on attaining the age of superannuation. While the pension papers of the petitioner were being processed, an objection was raised by the office of the Accountant General. On that basis, proficiency step up given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 has been withdrawn. Consequently, pay of the petitioner has been ordered to be re-fixed. Order of recovery from the petitioner was issued on 26.7.2010 (Annexure P-1). In implementation of the aforesaid order, the recovery worked out vide Annexure P-2 to the tune of Rs.79535/-. Both the orders are under challenge in this petition. From the perusal of the impugned orders (Annexure P-1 and P-2), it appears that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the petitioner. It is also relevant to mention here that the controversy in this petition, is covered by the judgment of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in CWP No.4456 of 2011 [2] case of Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.5.2009 wherein, following order has been passed:- “We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employee who are receipt of the benefit extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instruction 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.” In view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgment, recovery from the petitioner is impermissible in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is only aggrieved of the recovery and he has no objection in re-fixation of the pay and pensionary benefits etc. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) are quashed to the extent of recovery. However, respondents are entitled to re-fix the salary of the petitioner. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 11.03.2011 sd