CWP No. 15344 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No. 15344 of 2008 Date of decision : 28.7.2011 * * * * * Union of India and others ..........petitioners Versus Raj Singh and another ..........respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * * 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribnunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') partly accepting the claim made by the original applicant-respondent. The Tribunal has held CWP No. 15344 of 2008 2 that the orders dated 24.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 (Annexures A-1 and A-2) were not sustainable in the eyes of law to the extent that recovery has been ordered to be made from the pay and allowances of the original applicant. It is appropriate to mention that earlier the original applicant-respondent was issued a show cause notice to the effect that he was not within limit of the 10% strength of the cadre and the selection was given to him erroneously. Thereafter, a review DPC was conducted and the original applicant was found to be eligible for placement in the higher pay scale of Rs.330-480/- as per his seniority. The aforesaid administrative mistake was corrected and the overpayment made for the period the original applicant- respondent worked on the selection grade post was sought to be recovered. The Tribunal has set aside the recovery presumably on the ground that there was no fault on the part of the original applicant/respondent. In fact a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram vs. state of Haryaan 2009 (3) SCT 333 has already taken a decision by relying on various propositions of law. One of the propositions laid by the Full Bench is that once an employee has not made any misrepresentation or has committed fraud for obtaining financial benefits then the recovery cannot be effected. In the present case, the original applicant-respondent was found to be within the 10% strength which was qualified for award of Selection Grade. After DPC he was given the selection grade but later on it was realised that there was some error and selection grade was erroneously given to him. Obviously it was mistake of the appellant and no fault can be attributed to original applicant/respondent and CWP No. 15344 of 2008 3 the controversy is accordingly fully covered by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in favour of the original applicant-respondent. The view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the Union of India being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE July 28, 2011 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ritu JUDGE