CWP No.20821 of 2008 Gurinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others. Present: Mr.Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Petitioner was serving as Senior Scale Stenographer. Pay of the petitioner was stepped up at par with one Smt.Inderjit Kaur, Senior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. 13.7.2000 vide order dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2006 from the post of Personal Assistant. After his retirement, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby, the benefit of higher pay scale at par with Smt.Inderjit Kaur has been withdrawn and the pay of the petitioner reduced and revised. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present petition. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is sought to be projected that benefit was wrongly given to the petitioner. It is stated that Smt.Injderjit Kaur was granted special pay which was not admissible to the petitioner. The benefit of the higher pay scale at par with Smt.Inderjit Kaur has been withdrawn. The respondents relied upon Annexure R-1. In this note, it is stated that Smt.Injderjit Kaur was granted a special pay but the nature and kind of special pay being drawn by her is not indicated. It is not in dispute that Smt.Inderjit Kaur who is junior to the petitioner, was drawing higher pay scale. In these circumstances, the order granting higher pay scale cannot be faulted with. Apart from this while passing the impugned order CWP No.20821 of 2008 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard. Order is also violative of principles of natural justice. In addition to this, petitioner has placed on record the copy of circular dated 16.7.2008 wherein it is specifically provided that all cases of step up of salary at par with junior will not be reopened in terms of the earlier instructions dated 3.6.2005. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of aforesaid circular as well. 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 view of the above, this petition is allowed and impugned order (Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded within a period of three months. Pension of the petitioner shall be re-determined as no benefit has been withdrawn and consequential benefit will be released within the aforesaid period. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 26.07.2010 sd 2