IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9590 of 2007 Date of decision: 5th October, 2010 Nirmal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab, for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) It is stated that the first paper book of the present petition is not available and an adjournment be granted. Since, counsel for the petitioner has stated that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in ‘Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others’ 2009(3) SCT 333, necessity of first paper book is dispensed with. In the present petition, a prayer has been made that order dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure P-6), whereby recovery was ordered to be effected from the petitioner, be set aside. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-6) reveals that during the audit, it surfaced that the petitioner was working as a Junior Auditor in the years 1999-2000 and 2003-2005, and he was wrongly granted increment due to proficiency step-up with effect from 17th Civil Writ Petition No.9590 of 2007 October, 1991 to 30th November, 2004 and hence, an excess payment of Rs.38,336/- was made in violation of the Government instructions. It is not disputed that the proficiency step-up increment was granted to the petitioner because his entire service was counted with effect from 1st September, 1989 to comply with the instructions, which envisaged the scheme of Assured Career Progression. For grant of this increment, neither there was any deception, nor any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram’s case (supra) that where a benefit has accrued to an employee due to the wrong calculation on the part of the employer and there is no misrepresentation, deception or fraud on the part of the employee, recovery of that benefit cannot be effected. In view of the ratio of law laid down in Budh Ram’s case (supra), the present petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 5, 2010 rps 2