C.W.P NO. 21774 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 21774 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 12.01.2011. Tarlochan Kaur Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Addl. Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ***** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has retired from the post of JBT teacher on 30.11.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. Pension was sanctioned in her favour vide PPO No. 198229/PB dated 1.12.2006. The petitioner was served with a letter dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby an amount of Rs.25,904/- has been ordered to be recovered from her after re-fixation of the salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order only regarding recovery and has no objection insofar as the re-fixation is concerned. From the impugned order, it appears that the recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay on 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996. There is nothing in the impugned C.W.P NO. 21774 of 2010 (O&M) 2 order which may suggest that the benefit was conferred on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on part of petitioner. The controversy is squarely covered by a Full Bench decision rendered by this Court in Budh Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana & Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009) reported as 2009(3) PLR 511, wherein following observation has been made:- “ We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions 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 view of the above, impugned order dated 29.11.2010 is hereby quashed to the extent it has ordered recovery from the petitioner. However, the respondents are at liberty to re-fix the salary of the petitioner. (PERMOD KOHLI) 12.01.2011. JUDGE C.W.P NO. 21774 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Anoop