Civil Writ Petition No. 14341 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14341 of 2010 S.K. Chawla .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner had joined the Excise and Taxation Department on 20.10.1972 as a Clerk on ad hoc basis. His services were regularized on 29.11.1973. He was promoted as Assistant on 20.5.1997 and thereafter, to the post of Superintendent on 24.8.2009. The pay scale of the petitioner for the post of Superintendent was `15430+4200 (grade pay). On 1.1.2010, the petitioner received a communication from respondent No.3 disclosing that the pay of the petitioner has been wrongly fixed in the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per the revised pay rules 2008 and re- fixed in the pay as `14870+4200 (grade pay). Notice for recovery was, accordingly, issued to the petitioner. Claiming that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner, when his pay was earlier fixed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the recovery of the amount, which has been ordered. Civil Writ Petition No. 14341 of 2010 -2- In the case of Budh Ram Versus State of Haryana, 2009 (3) SCT 333 this Court has held that if the employee has not made any misrepresentation or fraud, then the amount paid though in excess, cannot be recovered. Notice of motion was issued, but no reply has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner has a grievance that despite repeated opportunities, State has not filed any reply. Mr. Rathee says that the writ petition can be disposed of in view of law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra). Since the issue is squarely settled, the present writ petition is allowed following the ratio of law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra) and the recovery as ordered is set aside. July 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE