IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2844 of 2003 Date of Decision : May 27, 2010. Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner who is working as Junior Engineer in the Punjab Works Department (B&R), Government of Punjab, seeks quashing of the order dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure P-3) vide which his pay has been reduced after re-fixation and a notice to effect recovery of the excess payment has been issued. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was granted two advance increments for passing the AMIE examination, which, according to the respondents, were inadmissible. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his claim qua the impugned recovery only. He relies C.W.P.No .2844 of 2003 2 upon a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333 and contends that since the petitioner has not played any fraud or made any misrepresentation before the authorities while seeking grant of two additional increments, no recovery can be effected from him. Mr.B.S.Chahal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand vehemently opposes the petitioner's prayer on the plea that since the benefit was granted erroneously, the authority is competent to rectify its mistake from the date when it occurs and effect the consequential recovery from the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In my considered view, mis-interpretation of the instructions, if any, at the hands of the authorities as a result whereof, the benefit of two increments were granted to the petitioner, is an act to which the petitioner played no role. That being so, the impugned notice to the extent of effecting recovery from the petitioner cannot sustain. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned order 11.2.2003 (Annexure P-3), qua recovery only, is set-aside, though re-fixation of pay is upheld. Dasti. May 27, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE