IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16178 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.03.2011 Smt.Veero … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Petitioner’s husband died on 27.3.2003 while serving as a Constable. After his death, respondent No.2 had sanctioned pension. Petitioner was also granted ex-gratia grant equal to 24 times of the basic pay of her husband amounting to Rs.1,78,560/-. Thereafter, respondent passed the impugned order dated 18.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) for recovery of Rs.1,28,560/- from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to ex-gratia grant of Rs.50,000/- only and not to Rs.1,78,560/- which has been paid equal to 24 times of the basic pay. It has been noticed in the impugned order that ex- gratia grant equal to 24 times of the basic pay is payable only to such of the officials who died while performing the duties as a result of attack or during action against extremists, dacoits, smugglers and anti social elements etc. On that basis, the recovery has been sought from the petitioner. It is this which is under challenge in this petition. It is stated that the amount has been paid by the respondents on interpretation of the govt. instructions and without any misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the petitioner. Even from the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. It was a bona fide interpretation on the basis of the govt. instructions by the respondents which resulted in excess payment to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have spent the said amount. It is also relevant to mention here that the controversy in this petition, is covered by the judgment of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in CWP No.16178 of 2010 (O&M) case of Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.5.2009 wherein, following order has been passed:- “We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employee who are receipt of the benefit extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instruction 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 the above circumstances, the impugned order to the extent of recovery against the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The amount, if any recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months. This petition is allowed, order dated 18.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 01.03.2011 sd 2