In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1533 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:4.11.2011 The State of Punjab and others .....Appellants v. Skattar Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which appeal filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that the deduction of `45/- per month as the pay portion out of the additional relief granted to him from the date of his joining till the date of filing of the suit after its full R.S.A. No.1533 of 1988 [2] adjustment was illegal, null and void, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and was not binding upon him. It was submitted that the plaintiff was legally entitled to the amount so deducted by the defendants-appellants. As per statement made by the representative of the Department before the trial Court, the suit was decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to `363/- per month as ADA w.e.f. 1.1.1979 instead of `318/- per month. The appeal filed by the defendants before the appellate Court has been dismissed. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the defendants-State have come in appeal. The following substantial question of law is framed in this case. Whether the Government is entitled to recover from an employee any payment made in excess he was otherwise entitled to on account of any mistake or bona fide where the employee concerned is not guilty of any fraud? From the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The appellants cannot now be allowed to go back from the offer which had been made. It is also apparent that the respondent was not at all guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in claiming or receiving this monetary benefit of `363/- w.e.f. 1.1.1979. A Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others and Veena Sapra v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, (2009) 155 PLR 511 has held as under:- “We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them R.S.A. No.1533 of 1988 [3] on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions 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.” As there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent in getting this benefit of `363/- from the appellants, I am of the view that the the ratio of this judgment is fully applicable to the facts of this case. Otherwise also, Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. November 4, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*