CWP No.10752 of 2010 Date of decision : 8.2.2011 Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab. * * * Permod Kohli, J. The petitioner has joined as Clerk with the respondents’ Public Health Department on 8.3.1971 and retired as Senior Assistant on 30.6.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. During the processing of pension of the petitioner under objections raised by the Accountant General, an amount of Rs.61948 has been ordered to be deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner vide order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P-5). It is this order which is subject matter in the writ petition. From the reply, it appears that the deduction has been made on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to proficiency increment. However, from the impugned order and the reply, it appears that there is no allegation of misrepresentation of 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 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 the above circumstances, the impugned order to the extent of recovery against the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. Part of the order regarding re-fixation of salary remains intact. The CWP No.10752 of 2010 [2] amount, if any recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of three months. With regard to the question of re-fixation, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 2.3.2010 passed in CWP No.16323 of 2008 has already constituted a Committee for re-consideration of such cases of refixation. The case of the petitioner is also referred to the aforesaid Committee to consider the question of re-fixation of petitioner’s pension. The petitioner shall be entitled to revision of retiral benefits. In the event, the report of the Committee goes in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to the revised pensionary and other benefits. The Committee shall decide the controversy within the time specified in the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation before the Committee if so desired. Petition stands disposed of. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 08.02.2011 sd