IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5742 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.03.2011 Dhian Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab etc. …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. CM No.3396 of 2011 Notice of the application to the none-applicant-State. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant-respondents. With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken on the board for final decision. CWP No.5742 of 2005 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis in the year 1982. He was retrenched from service on 31.3.1984 along with other employees. A Civil Writ Petition No.2367 of 1984 came to be filed before this Court challenging the action of the department. This petition was disposed of on 21.5.1986 with a direction to treat the period of interruption in service as a notional break and the petitioner was re-employed. Services of the petitioner thereafter were regularized. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. Pay of the petitioner was re-fixed by withdrawing benefits of the earlier service prior 1.1.1988 as Sr.Clerk vide order dated 28.3.2005 (Annexure P-2) and amount of Rs.33,673/- has been ordered to be recovered from him. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. CWP No.5742 of 2005 (O&M) When this petition was admitted on 7.4.2005, recovery from the petitioners was stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner would confine their relief to recovery part and do not challenge the re-fixation. However, from the impugned order and the reply, 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 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 view of ratio of above judgment, recovery from the petitioners is impermissible in law. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed only to the extent of recovery. Respondents are at liberty to refix the pay of the petitioner.The amount, if any recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of three months. Petition stands disposed of. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 11.03.2011 sd 2