CWP No.5957 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 12.01.2010 Milap Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RKS Brar, Addl.AG, Haryana, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was serving in the office of Executive Engineer, Mechanical PWD B & R Branch, Karnal as a Auto Diesel Mechanic. He was in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-. He was promoted to the post of ADC and placed in the revised grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in the sacle of Rs.4000-6000/-. The petitioner was also permitted to cross the Efficiency Bar at the stage of Rs.4800/- in the aforesaid grade. His pay was accordingly fixed at Rs.4900/- w.e.f. 7.12.2006 vide order of the same date passed by the respondents. Now the salary of the petitioner has been refixed and reduced vide orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. A sum of Rs.43965/- is also sought to be recovered from him on account of the excess payment. The petitioner made representation in response to the notice Annexure P-2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging re-fixation of his salary and recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, submits that he has instructions to abandon the claim so far refixation is concerned with liberty to pursue the matter with the department and press CWP No.5957 of 2009 : 2 : this petition only with regard to the recovery part only. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was wrongly and inadvertently granted the second ACP benefit with effect from 01.11.2003 and excess amount, thus, paid is sought to be recovered There is nothing in the reply or in the impugned orders that the benefit of second ACP was granted to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the him. The controversy is no more res integra as a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.2799 of 2008) decided on 22.05.2009, has been 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 been any way contributed to such erroneous interpretation or 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, the present writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. If any CWP No.5957 of 2009 : 3 : recovery pursuant to the impugned orders is made from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him. 12.01.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE