IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2486 of 2008 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 17.09.2009 Ramesh ... PETITIONER Versus The Union of India and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.K. Dogra & Mr. P.C. Munjal, Advocates, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner is working as Sweeper in the office of Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Amritsar Cantt. On 21.12.2001, he was granted one increment with effect from 1.1.1996. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled for the said benefit and this mistake was detected on 21.6.2006. Thereafter, on 28.6.2006, respondent No.2 passed an order for recovery of Rs. 26,245/- from the petitioner without providing him an opportunity of hearing and the said amount was ordered to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner. It is the admitted position that till date, a sum of Rs. 14,820/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. CWP No. 2486 of 2008 -2- Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (5) SLR 753 and Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009, has argued that since the additional increment was granted to the petitioner by the respondents themselves without any mis-representation made or fraud played by the petitioner, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that at the time of granting the said additional increment to the petitioner, no mis-representation or fraud was played by him. The said benefit was granted due to the wrong interpretation of the Rules. In view of this, counsel for the respondents has conceded that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of recovery of the aforesaid amount is set aside. The respondents are restrained from recovering the remaining amount and are further directed to refund the sum of Rs. 14,820/- to the petitioner, which has already been recovered from him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 17, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE