IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3140 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.02.2011 Ramesh Chander and others ...Petitioners Versus M.D. University and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners were initially appointed as Security-cum- Chowkidar in pre-revised scale of Rs. 750-12-870-EB-14-940+30 special pay on the contract basis but against a substantive post. The University allowed the benefit of increment to the petitioners. The similar benefits were also allowed to some Assistant Cartographer and Data Entry Operators. Now, the University has taken action to recover some excess amount paid retrospectively despite instructions that excess amount erroneously granted to the petitioner may not be recoverable. The primary grievance of the petitioners, therefore, is that the benefit of annual increment granted on account of contractual service rendered on regular scale was allowed without any misrepresentation or fraud. Accordingly, the action to recover the amount, even any statedly paid in excess, would not be possible in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case Civil Writ Petition No. 3140 of 2010 -2- of Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others 2009 (2) Law Herald Punjab & Haryana 1617. Noticing this law, this Court had issued notice and had directed that the recovery shall not be effected till further orders. The position of law is not in any serious dispute. In fact, the counsel for the University has very fairly submitted before this Court that the petitioners were allowed regular pay scale and increment rightly and now have also been regularised. Accordingly, the recovery of the amount, even if paid in excess, would not be fair and possible, in view of the law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra). The impugned order directing recovery from the petitioners, therefore, is quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. February 23, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE