In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2026 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:19.9.2011 The State of Punjab and another .....Appellants v. Hazura Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Chetan Dayal, Advocate Mr. B.M. Lal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court vide which appeal of the respondent-Hazura Singh (plaintiff) has been accepted. As per facts of this case, respondent-Hazura Singh initially joined as temporary Mate with the appellants and thereafter in the year 1975 his services were made permanent. The appellants vide their letter dated 30.10.1984 ordered for deduction of an amount of `1200/- from his salary R.S.A. No.2026 of 1988 [2] which gave him cause of action to file suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any deduction from his salary. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court, however, in appeal findings have been reversed by holding that the respondent was not given an opportunity of being heard and as such the deduction made by the appellants without affording opportunity to its employee was bad in law. However, the department was given a liberty to make an inquiry afresh by giving full opportunity to the employee to explain his case. Aggrieved from this order the Department has come in appeal. The following substantial question of law is framed in this case. Whether the Government is entitled to recover from an employee any payment made in excess he was otherwise entitled to on account of any mistake or bona fide where the employee concerned is not guilty of any fraud? From the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that there was a mistake in the date regarding joining of the respondent in service. The mistake was clerical and because of this mistake the respondent seems to have been withdrawing some more salary than he was entitled to. The mistake has been corrected and the benefit of `1200/- which has accrued to the respondent on account of this mistake has been sought to be recovered by the impugned notice. It is also apparent that the respondent was not at all guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in claiming or receiving this monetary benefit of `1200/-. A Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others and Veena Sapra v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, (2009) 155 R.S.A. No.2026 of 1988 [3] PLR 511 has held as under:- “We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, 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 stopped for the future, but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them.” As there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent in getting this benefit of `1200/- from the appellants, I am of the view that the the ratio of this judgment is fully applicable to the facts of this case. Otherwise also, Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. September 19, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*