IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8232 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.11.2010 Karam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was appointed as Bus Conductor on 18.10.1985. His services were regularised w.e.f. 15.08.1986. The scale of the petitioner was revised under Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the pay was got refixed. As per the State, this was done on 18.02.2009. The State immediately realized the mistake and passed an order on 18.07.2009 refixing the pay of the petitioner from 01.01.1996 by taking his date of regularization to be a valid date for grant of ACP. The petitioner filed the civil suit against the same when the statement was made on behalf of the State that no recovery shall be effected till the time the petitioner was served with the show cause notice and fresh order passed. Now, the order has been passed for recovery of sum of Rs. 24,816/- in 12 instalments. The petitioner has disputed the recovery primarily on the ground that there was no misrepresentation on his part when his pay was revised and as such the recovery of the Civil Writ Petition No.8232 of 2010 -2- excess amount paid cannot be recovered in the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others 2009 (3) SCT 333. Mr. Rathee says that it is a case of clear mistake, which was immediately corrected and the ratio of law in the case of Budh Ram (supra) may not apply. There is nothing coming out from the decision of the Full Bench that when the mistake is immediately corrected and the excess payment is not on account of any misrepresentation, the recovery can be effected. Order directing recovering of the amount is, therefore, set aside. However, the order refixing the pay does not not call for any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. November 01, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE