Civil Writ Petition No. 11861 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 11861 of 2006 Date of Decision: August 31st, 2010 Brij Mohan Sharma and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioners were appointed as Steno-typists/Clerks on various dates in the Irrigation Department, Haryana. In the present writ petition, the petitioners prayed for quashing of impugned orders dated 22.8.2005 (Annexure P2), 13.1.2006 (Annexure P6), 15.5.2006 (Annexure P7), 25.5.2006 (Annexure P8) and 4.5.2006 (Annexure P9), 31.5.2006 (Annexure P10). The petitioners have also sought directions to respondent No.2 not to withdraw the benefit of second Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as “ACP”) Scheme. The petitioners were granted benefit of first ACP Scheme, after completion of ten years' of their service. Thereafter, on completion of their 20 years of service, the petitioners were granted benefit under ACP Scheme, as per the Rules. Lateron, order dated 22.8.2005 Civil Writ Petition No. 11861 of 2006 2 (Annexure P2) was issued by respondent No.2 to all the Superintending Engineers in the Irrigation Department, Haryana, that steno-typists, who were granted benefit under second ACP Scheme, after completion of 20 years of service without passing the departmental test of Stenography, were not entitled for the grant of said benefit and the same be withdrawn, in accordance with law. Apparently, this was done by the department under the bonafide mistake. There was no misrepresentation, deception or fault on the part of the petitioners. The present writ petition was listed along with Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 titled as “Budh Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Others”, decided on 16.8.2010, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that in case the amount has been paid to an employee under bonafide mistake and there is no fault, misrepresentation or deception on the part of the employee, such an amount cannot be recovered. Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly accepted and the impugned orders dated 22.8.2005 (Annexure P2), 13.1.2006 (Annexure P6), 15.5.2006 (Annexure P7), 25.5.2006 (Annexure P8) and 4.5.2006 (Annexure P9), 31.5.2006 (Annexure P10) are quashed. It is further directed that no amount shall be recovered from the petitioners which was paid to them by granting benefit under the second ACP Scheme, under the bonafide mistake. However, there will be no order as to costs. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 31st, 2010 “DK”