The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees may not be entitled to retain excess amounts paid to them if it is unrelated to any erroneous interpretation or application of the rule.

Augustine George Masih, J.

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of LPA Nos. 375, 376, 377 and 459 of 2010. Through these appeals, the appellants have approached for setting aside of the judgment/order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the Honble Single Judge in the writ petitions filed by the appellant- petitioners. The writ petitions were disposed of by a common order.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions in these cases are that State of Haryana issued instructions dated 2.6.1989 to grant Sr.Scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- and selection grade of Rs. 4100-5300/- to Engineers and Doctors on completion of their 5 years and 12 years of service respectively. Vide notification dated 16.5.1990, the earlier instructions dated 2.6.1989 stood modified and the benefit of the senior scale and selection grade was restricted to 20% of the posts. Notification dated 16.5.1990 was challenged by many employees of the State of Haryana by filing writ petitions in this Court. Validity of the instructions dated 16.5.1990 was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh, vide order dated 20.11.2000. Respondent- Department thereafter issued instructions dated 21.4.2001 to initiate recovery from the employees. Demand notices for recovery were received by the appellant-petitioners and on receipt of the same, they challenged the notification dated 25.1.2001 and the demand notice through the writ petitions which were dismissed by this Court vide judgment/order dated 20.5.2009. It would not be out of way to mention here that when the notification dated 16.5.1990 was challenged by the employees of the State of Haryana in the writ petitions before the High Court, the operation of the said notification was stayed by this Court subject to final decision. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.5.2009, which has been impugned in the present appeals, relying upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & others v. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (1) SCT 611, rejected the contention of the appellantpetitioners that no recovery of the excess amount paid to them could be made from the petitioners as they had neither challenged the notification dated 16.5.1990 nor had given any undertaking that they would refund the amount in case the notification is upheld by the Court. It was their submission that the petitioners have neither committed any fraud nor misrepresentation or deception was practiced to obtain for grant of such benefit and, therefore, the excess amount paid to them could not be recovered from them. On these very pleas again, challenge has been posed to the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

3. Counsel for the appellants vehemently argues that the appellants did not seek benefit of the instructions dated 2.6.1989 but were granted the benefit by the respondents of their own accord. The appellants have not contributed in any manner to get benefit from the respondents by unfair means but the said benefit has been extended to them by the respondent-State themselves. The appellants have retired from service and to effect recovery from them at this stage would neither be justified nor in accordance with law. He places reliance on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333, to contend that the case of the appellants is fully covered by the cases falling in category (ii) which were the cases involving recovery of benefits sought by the employees on account of misrepresentation or erroneous interpretations like rules, regulations, circulars or instructions issued by the Government and the appellants have not in any way contributed to such erroneous interpretations. In this category of cases, the Full Bench of this Court had held that the benefit so extended erroneously may be stopped for the future but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them. He accordingl