IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14435 of 2008 Date of Decision : June 30, 2010. Ms.Raj Rani and others .....Petitioners versus State Bank of Patiala .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sarvan Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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 seek quashing of the orders dated 30.5.2008, 19.5.2008, 7.4.2008, 1.4.2008 and 7.4.2009 (Annexure P-1 to P-5) vide which their pay has been reduced after re-fixation and an order for effecting recovery of the excess payment has been passed. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts their claim qua impugned recovery only. He relies 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 a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in (2010) 1 SCC 440 (Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and others versus Israil C.W.P.No .14435 of 2008 2 Khan and others), and contends that since the petitioners have not played any fraud or made any misrepresentation before the authorities to seek grant of additional increments, no recovery can be effected from them. 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 increments were granted to the petitioners, is an act to which the petitioners played no role. That being so, the impugned notices to the extent of effecting recovery from the petitioners cannot sustain. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned orders dated 30.5.2008, 19.5.2008, 7.4.2008, 1.4.2008 and 7.4.2009 (Annexure P-1 to P-5), qua recovery only, are set-aside, though re-fixation of pay is upheld. Dasti. June 30, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE