IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4401 of 2008 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 17.09.2009 Puran Singh and others ... PETITIONERS Versus The Union of India and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.K. Dogra & Mr. P.C. Munjal, Advocates, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners are working as Sweeper in the office of Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Amritsar Cantt. On 21.12.2001, they were granted one increment each with effect from 1.1.1996. According to the respondents, the petitioners were not entitled for the said benefit and this mistake was detected on 21.6.2006. Thereafter, on 28.6.2006, respondent No.2 passed orders for recovery of Rs. 26,225/-, Rs. 34,157/-, Rs. 26,245/- and Rs. 26,245/- from petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, without providing them an opportunity of hearing and the said amount was ordered to be deducted from the salary of the petitioners. It is the admitted position that till date, a sum of Rs. 16,400/-, Rs. 28,900/-, Rs. 16,420/- and CWP No. 4401 of 2008 -2- Rs.14,820/- have been recovered from the salary of petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (5) SLR 753 and Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009, has argued that since the additional increment was granted to the petitioners by the respondents themselves without any mis-representation made or fraud played by the petitioners, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to recover the excess payment made to the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that at the time of granting the said additional increment to the petitioners, no mis-representation or fraud was played by them. The said benefit was granted due to the wrong interpretation of the Rules. In view of this, counsel for the respondents has conceded that the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from the petitioners. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders of recovery of the aforesaid amount are set aside. The respondents are restrained from recovering the remaining amount and are further directed to refund the sum of Rs. 16,400/-, Rs. 28,900/-, Rs. 16,420/- and Rs. 14,820/- to petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, which has already been CWP No. 4401 of 2008 -3- recovered from them, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 17, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE