IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1228 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2009 State of Haryana and others. -----Appellants Vs. B.D. Goel. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. The State is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge, setting aside order of recovery from the respondent on the ground that the payment was wrongly made towards increment. 2. The respondent was employed as Junior Engineer with the appellants and retired on 30.9.2006 after putting in 35 years of service. The retiral benefits were withheld which led to filing of the writ petition, which was opposed, inter-alia, on the ground that by mistake increment was wrongly granted to him and on that account, a sum of Rs.78019/- was required to be LPA No.1228 of 2009 recovered. This process led to delay in releasing pensionary benefits. 3. Learned Single Judge held that since the amount was not paid on account of mis-representation or fraud on the part of the employee, State could not be allowed to effect recovery. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others 2009(3) SCC479. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants referring to Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana 2009(3) SCT 333 submitted that bar to effecting recovery was applicable to cases falling under category (ii) out of the three categories laid down therein, while the present case would fall under category (iii). The said categories are as under:- “i) Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered from the employees were granted to them on the basis of anyfraud, misrepresentation or any other act of deception; ii) Cases in which the benefits sought to be recovered were granted on the basis of a bonafide mistake committed by the authority granting the same while applying or interpreting a provision contained in the service rule, regulation or any other memo or circular authorizing such grant regardless whether or not grant of benefits involved the performance of higher or more onerous duties by the employee concerned; iii) Cases that do not fall in either one of the above two 2 LPA No.1228 of 2009 categories but where the nature of the benefit and extent is so unconnected with his service conditions that the employee must be presumed to have known that the benefit was flowing to him undeservedly because of a mistake by the authority granting the same. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The present case clearly falls in category (ii). Moreover, view taken by learned Single Judge, is fully supported by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), para 58. 7. The appeal is dismissed (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 16, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3