Civil Writ Petition No.8057 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8057 of 2011 Date of Decision: 06th May, 2011 Banarsi Das Sharma & Others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.P.S.Khurana Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) Notice of motion to respondents No.1 and 2 only. Ms.Anupal, AAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of writ petition, the same is disposed of in the motion hearing itself.. The petitioners were working as S.S.Master and Lecturer in the State of Punjab. They retired on the dates indicated in Annexure P-1 of the writ petition. Much after their retirement, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 23.02.2011 for re-fixation of the pay of the petitioners on account of wrong payment of proficiency benefit and the same has been ordered to be recovered. It is alleged that the benefit was conferred upon the petitioners without any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in case titled as Budh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others passed in CWP No.2799 of 2008 wherein following observations have been made: “We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the Civil Writ Petition No.8057 of 2011 2 employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, 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 stated for the future, but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them. As regards, the question of re- fixation is concerned similar matters of re-fixation have been referred to a Committee constituted pursuant to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No.16323 of 2008” In so far as, the re-fixation on account of proficiency is concerned, the petitioners do not dispute. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is partly allowed. Impugned order for re-fixation is upheld. The respondents are not entitled to make any recovery from the petitioners. It is however made clear that if on further examination and verification, it is found that the petitioners secured the benefit by misrepresentation or fraud, the State shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate steps. Amount, if any, recovered from the petitioners, shall be refunded back within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) 06th May, 2011. JUDGE Seema-II