IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.17408 of 2006 DATE OF ORDER: 19.2.2008 Nirmala Devi ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and Others .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) Petitioner was working as S.S. Mistress and has retired from the state service on 30.9.2006. She was granted higher pay scale, on acquiring higher qualification vide order dated 12.12.1973. She was promoted as S.S. Mistress on 17.2.1994 in the same pay scale, which she was drawing prior to her promotion. She, on account of her promotion, was granted benefit of one additional increment. She retired in the year 2006. Vide order dated 4.8.2004 (P.3), it has been stated that on her promotion, she was not entitled to get additional increment as she was already working in the higher pay scale. Vide order under challenge, that benefit was withdrawn and recovery was ordered to be effected from her. Hence this writ petition. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that so far as withdrawal of abovesaid benefit of increment is concerned, same is perfectly justified and is in consonance with the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Another v. Partap Singh and Others, 2007(1), RSJ, 6. So far as recovery of the amount is concerned, we are in agreement with the contentions of counsel for the petitioner that the amount already paid, cannot be recovered from her. It is an admitted fact that in CWP.NO.17408 of 2006 #2# getting benefit of one additional increment, petitioner has not misrepresented any fact to the authority concerned. On her promotion vide order dated 1.5.1968 (P.1), one additional increment was added in her pay by the authorities of their own. To say that benefit of excessive amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Partap Singh's case (supra) wherein it has been said that even if some wrong financial benefit has been given to a government servant, recovery be not effected from the employee concerned. Same is the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) RSJ, 139 and also in the case of Purshotam Dass and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2007(1) RSJ 150. In view of the facts mentioned above, this writ petition is partly allowed and action of the authorities in ordering recovery of excess amount already paid to the petitioner stands quashed. So far as re-fixation of pay is concerned, that is held to be justified. In view of the finding given above, authorities are directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 19, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE