C.W.P. No.14442 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14442 of 2008 Date of Decision:29.03.2010 Shakuntla Devi ........Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. This writ petition is another illustration of a case where a person, who has obtained a particular scale of pay, is later informed that scale of pay was wrongly so granted and that the amount paid in excess shall be recovered. This matter has come for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court Hon'ble Court in Budh Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others 2009(3) SCT 333. The only two exceptions which the Full Bench had made by way of illustration was a payment, which was made by practice of fraud or misrepresentation made by a workman. The other situation is when the payment is made in excess on an obvious mistake which the C.W.P. No.14442 of 2008 -2- workman knew that he was not entitled to receive. The fixation of scale of pay which, according to the respondent, was wrongly done does not come within the two exceptions noted by the dispensation in Budh Ram's case. 2. I have not addressed the issue of the actual scale of pay, which the petitioner is entitled. I am answering this writ petition only insofar as the attempted recovery was concerned. The impugned office order insofar as it provides for a right of recovery is alone quashed. 3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 29, 2010 Pankaj*