IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16649 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 27th September, 2010. Harbhajan Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate Versus Food Corporation of India & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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 petitioners are/were working as Duster Operators/ Pickers in the Food Corporation of India, out of whom petitioner No. 1 has already retired w.e.f. 31.12.2008, whereas petitioner No. 2 has withdrawn this writ petition. Petitioners No. 3 to 6 are still in service. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 10.07.2009 and dated 25.8.2009 [Annexures P-3 and P-4] whereby the Selection Grade earlier granted to them has been retrospectively withdrawn w.e.f. 30.6.2000 and consequential recovery is also sought to be effected. Besides asserting that the selection grade was rightly granted to them, the petitioners impugn its withdrawal and the consequential recovery on the plea that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to them and that recovery can not be effected as the petitioners never misrepresented the facts nor played any fraud nor deceived the authorities for getting the Selection Grade. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that while considering the claim of some other employees the authorities noticed that the petitioners were granted the Selection Grade erroneously and it being a case of bona-fide error, they are well within their right to rectify the mistake. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. There is indeed no dispute that the withdrawal of the Selection Grade and that too retrospectively subjects the petitioners to civil consequences. No such orders could have been passed without observing the principles of natural justice. That apart, it is well settled that if an employees did not misrepresent the facts nor played any fraud or deceived the authorities and the benefit was granted due to misconstruction of the Rules and/or on misunderstanding of the relevant provisions, the mistake even if allowed to be rectified, can not lead to consequential recovery of the monetary benefits already drawn by such employee. It has been so held by a Full Bench of this court in Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors. 2009[3] PLR, 511 as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana & Ors. v Israil Khan & Ors. [2010] 1 SCC, 440. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 10.07.2009 and 25.8.2009 [Annexures P- 3 and P-4] are hereby quashed. In case any recovery has been effected from the petitioners, the respondents are directed to refund the same within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to give a show cause notice to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders after hearing them. It is, however, made clear that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioners even if the respondents hold that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of Selection Grade. In the event of any adverse orders being passed, the petitioners shall be at liberty to impugn the same in accordance with law. Since petitioner No. 1 has already retired, his retiral dues be released within a period of three months from today. Disposed of. Dasti. September 27, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE