C.W.P. No. 10066 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10066 of 2009 Date of Decision: Aug. 9, 2011 Nirmal Kumar .............................................. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) The petitioner is seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure P4) vide which the date of regularization of the petitioner has been changed from 31.8.1982 to 29.10.1985 and his salary has been re- fixed. Petitioner has joined as Draftsman on 31.8.1982 on the basis of appointment letter dated 23.8.1982. His services were regularized with effect from 31.8.1982 vide C.W.P. No. 10066 of 2009 [ 2 ] order dated 29.10.1985 (Annexure P2). Vide judgment dated 16.12.1991 passed in C.W.P. No. 10108 of 1991 the seniority fixed by the respondents from the initial date of appointment was upheld. The final seniority-list of the Draftsmen has been prepared vide order dated 21.9.1988. Since this date the petitioner has been enjoying the benefit of adhoc service rendered by him towards seniority. Grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure P4), on an objection by the Audit department, his date of regularization has been changed from 31.8.1992 to 29.10.1985. His pay has been re-fixed and consequential benefits given under the proficiency step-up increments on completing 8, 16 and 24 years of service have also been changed. Pursuant to this order, recovery is being sought from the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the seniority fixed on 21.9.1988 cannot be disturbed after a gap of more than 20 years as the orders of regularizing his services were passed way back on 29.10.1985 (Annexure P2). The factual aspect has not been disputed by the respondents. By way of filing an affidavit dated 4.8.2011 they have annexed the letter dated 1.2.1985 by which the Department of Irrigation & Power has accorded approval regarding selection and regularization of services of Junior C.W.P. No. 10066 of 2009 [ 3 ] Engineers and Draftsmen (Annexure R1) as well as the order of the Chief Engineer/DRg, Irrigation Works, Punjab regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his appointment i.e. 29.10.1985 (Annexure R2). It is not the case of the respondents that the benefit accrued to the petitioner had been by misrepresentation or fraud. The Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others 1994 (5) SLR 753 and the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others 2009 (3) PLR 511 has examined the recovery on the basis of wrong fixation of pay. It has been held that any benefit granted, if not based on misrepresentation or fraud, shall not be taken back. In the present case, in view of the affidavit of the respondents that the benefit of regularization has been granted to the petitioner, in pursuance to the Approval Annexure R1 dated 1.2.1985, vide order dated 29.10.1985 (Annexure R2), the order dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure P4) is quashed and the amount recovered in pursuance to this order be returned back to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9.8.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE