IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13325 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 04, 2010 Sunder Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. K. Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order directing recovery of an amount of Rs.74118/-. As per the respondents, this amount was needed to be recovered as it was wrongly paid to the petitioner by granting additional increment on completion of 8/18 years of service. Later ACP Rules were made applicable and one increment was granted on that basis. The State of Haryana withdrew the bunching increments and pay was reduced. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13325 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and he has already retired. On the other and, Mr.Rathee would say that the amount has already been recovered and hence, the matter ends and should rest at that. Since it is conceded that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner when the excess payment was made to which the petitioner was not entitled, it would not be fair to allow deduction from the death-cum-retirement gratuity of the petitioner. The Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333 has clearly held that any amount paid in excess of entitlement, would not be open to be recovered, if there had been no misrepresentation on the part of the employee. The petitioner can not denied the benefit of this law pronounced by this Court. Not only the recovery has been effected, but recovery is effected from the death-cum-retirement gratuity, which is not fair approach on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition, to this extent, deserves to be allowed. It is so ordered. The amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. August 04, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE