IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23109 of 2010 Date of decision : 03.03.2011 Swarn Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Nirmal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of without insisting for the reply. This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 by which he has directed the recovery of Rs.41,700/- from the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher on 1.10.1963. She retired on 31.10.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. Pension of the petitioner was sanctioned. It was only in the year 2009 that a notice dated 29.10.2009 was issued to the petitioner asking her to deposit an amount of Rs.41,700 /- (Annexure P-1) but no details of recovery were given to the petitioner before directing the said recovery. It is this order which is under challenge. From the impugned order, 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 arisen in this petition, is covered by the judgment of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in 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, CWP No.23104 of 2010 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 the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) to the extent of recovery against the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. However, respondents shall be at liberty to fix the pay if so desired. Petition stands disposed of. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 03.03.2011 sd 2