- (1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 1345, 8310 and 8416 of 2005 as the facts as well as the legal issues raised in these writ petitions are similar. For the sake of convenience, we have made reference to the pleadings made in CWP No. 1345 of 2005.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure P-5) whereby it has been directed to effect recovery from the terminal dues of the petitioner of Rs. 32,893/-. The petitioner retired from service after rendering 32 years of unblemished service. The recovery is sought to be made on the ground that his pay has been wrongly fixed and he had been granted one extra increment on his promotion from Assistant Fitter to Fitter by order dated 10.12.1987. The mistake was discovered at the time when the terminal benefits of the petitioner were being calculated. Therefore, recovery is being made only to rectify the mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation which resulted in wrong fixation of pay, no recovery can be effected from the terminal benefits. In support of the submission, the learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 1 SCT 668. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the recovery is not being effected from the petitioner as a measure of penalty. The respondents have committed a genuine mistake which has now been rectified. Before passing the impugned order (Annexure P-5), the respondents had duly issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 12.7.2004. The petitioner had also submitted a reply to the show-cause notice (Annexure P-4). We find no merit in the stand taken by the respondents. The matter is covered in favour of the petitioner by several decisions of this Court, including Kishori Lal Soni v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 10885 of 1997, decided on 18.12.1997. This judgment has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raghbir Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, CWP No. 846 of 2000, decided on 22.10.2001 pertaining to the very same respondent-department. Mr. Chauhan points out that SLP against this order had been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In all these cases, it has been held that in such circumstances, no recovery could be made from an employee. In Sahib Ram's case , the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "5. Admittedly, the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances, the appeal (appellant ?) would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation, the appellant had been paid his salary on revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay-scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appeal (appellant ?). The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs." We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure P-5). There would be no order as to costs.;