CWP No.19401 of 2006 Om Parkash and another Vs. State of Haryana and others. Present: Mr.Nilesh Bharwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana Mr.Sumeet Shoakat, Advocate for respondent No.1 * * * Petitioner No.1 joined the Indian Army on 13.3.1963 and retired as Naib Subedar Clerk on 31.3.1989 after rendering 27 years of service. Similarly, petitioner no.2 joined Army as Clerk on 1.4.1963 and retired on 31.3.1989 as Naib Subedar Clerk after rendering 26 years of service. After retirement, both the petitioner were re-employed as Clerk in Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak-respondent No.2 on 31.10.1991 and 17.10.1991 respectively in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. Vide instructions dated 11.4.1963 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, service rendered as Combatant Clerk is to be treated as equivalent to service as LDC/Junior Clerk in Civil Department. Such, combatant Clerk is entitled additional increment for every completed year of service in Army while fixing pay on civil post. The petitioners have also now retired from the University. Petitioner No.1 retied from the university service on August, 2003 whereas petitioner No.2 retired from service on May, 2004. After retirement, they were issued show cause notice dated 10.2.206 and 24.2.2006 respectively for refixation of their salary and consequential recovery. The respondents finally passed the order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-18) whereby the salary of petitioners re-fixed and excess payment of Rs.1,51,794/- and Rs.1,39,723/- has been ordered to be adjusted/recovered form their outstanding dues. It is this order which is subject matter of challenging in the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he has instructions to state that petitioners do not want to challenge the re-fixation of their salary and the relief claimed is only confined to the recovery part of the impugned order. Neither in the impugned order nor in the reply filed by respondent No.2, any allegation of fraud and/or misrepresentation has been CWP No.19401 of 2006 [2] made against the petitioners. Petitioners were granted the benefit of additional increment on bona fide interpretation of the instruction. It is also relevant to mention here that the controversy arisen in this petition, is covered by the judgment of Full Bench in case of Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.5.2009 wherein, following order has been passed:- “We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employee who are receipt of the benefit extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instruction 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.” In the above circumstances, the impugned order to the extent of recovery against the petitioners is not tenable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. Part of the order regarding re-fixation of salary remains intact. The amount, if any recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of three months. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 11.08.2010 sd