IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15195 of 2010 Date of decision : 01.03.2011 Prithvi Pal … Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Petitioner was initially appointed as JBT teacher on 23.1.1974 on adhoc basis. His services were regularized on 21.1.1976. He was granted higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualification on the basis of the govt. instructions dated 23.7.1957 and subsequent instructions dated 19.2.1979. Petitioner has retired from service on 28.2.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. When his case was being processed, objections were raised by the office of Accountant General regarding the payment of higher pay scale on account of acquiring higher qualification. On the basis of the aforesaid objections being raised by the Accountant General, a communication was sent to the District Education Officer (Ropar) dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) for grant of the higher pay scales w.e.f. 21.1.1976 instead of 23.1.1974 and subsequently, recovery from the petitioner was ordered. Pursuant to the above communication, an amount of Rs.255356/- has been deducted from the death- cum-gratuity vide GPO dated 20.2.2009. Petitioner is aggrieved of both these orders. From the perusal of the aforesaid orders and even the reply filed by respondent No.5, it appears that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the petitioner. It is also relevant to mention here that the controversy arisen in this petition, is covered by the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in 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 CWP No.15195 of 2010 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. Part of the order regarding re-fixation of salary remains intact. The amount, if any recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of one month. With regard to the question of re-fixation, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 2.3.2010 passed in CWP No.16323 of 2008 has already constituted a Committee for re-consideration of such cases of refixation. The case of the petitioner is also referred to the aforesaid Committee to consider the question of re-fixation. The Committee shall decide the controversy within the time specified in the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation before the Committee if so desired. Petition stands disposed of. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 01.03.2011 sd 2 CWP No.15195 of 2010 The question of refixation of the salary of the petitioner, shall be referred to the Committee already constituted and refixation will depend upon the outcome of the Committee. The amount of recovery if any will be refunded within one month. 3