ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral):This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.12630, 7841, 17041, 13137, 12686 and 16288 of 2007, 16730 of 2004 and 7902 of 2006 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts have been derived from CWP No.12630 of 2007. 2. Twenty six petitioners, who are working on different posts in the office of Financial Commissioner’s Secretariat, Punjab, are aggrieved at the recovery orders (Annexures P-7 to P-20) passed against them on different dates whereby their pay has been ordered to be re-fixed after a period of 14 years on the basis of an audit report. 3. According to the respondents and as is revealed from the impugned orders also, the pay of the petitioners was erroneously fixed at a higher stage with effect from 1.1.1993 and they continued to draw the resultant higher emoluments even after the subsequent pay revisions. Consequently, vide the impugned orders not only the error in pay fixation has been rectified but recovery of the alleged excess pay drawn by the petitioners has also been ordered. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners fairly states that even though the petitioners have raised several contentions in the writ petition assailing the impugned orders, however, they wish to confine their challenge only against the recovery sought to be effected from them. It is argued that the respondents have nowhere averred that the petitioners at the time of alleged erroneous re-fixation of their pay misrepresented the facts or misled the authorities so as to gain any undue monetary benefit. 5. In the written statement, though the respondents have elaborated as to how the pay of the petitioners was wrongly fixed, however, nowhere it is alleged that the petitioners misrepresented or concealed the facts or misled the authorities to enrich themselves through illegitimate means. Learned Additional Advocate General also fairly concedes this fact. 6. In these circumstances, while the respondents might be well within their right to rectify the inadvertent mistake, if any, committed by them while fixing/re-fixing the petitioners’ pay, however, the question as to whether they can recover the excess pay from the petitioners is no longer res-integra. Learned Additional Advocate General also fairly concedes this fact. 6. In these circumstances, while the respondents might be well within their right to rectify the inadvertent mistake, if any, committed by them while fixing/re-fixing the petitioners’ pay, however, the question as to whether they can recover the excess pay from the petitioners is no longer res-integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1994(5) SLR 753 and Babu Lal Jain v. State of M.P., (2007)6 SCC 180 has authoritatively held that when no attribution is made to an employee regarding misrepresentation or concealment of facts in securing a monetary benefit, no recovery can be permitted to be effected from him even while rectifying such a mistake. 7. Following the dicta in Sahib Ram’s case (supra) and various other judgments of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Swaran Singh ASI v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP No.1085 of 2004), decided on January 22, 2004, held as follows:- “Learned Counsel for the Respondents very fairly states that he is not in an effective position to rebut the claim of the petitioner on the issue of recovery in view of the fact that the upward revision of pay of the petitioner so as to bring it to the same level of pay drawn by his junior ASI Baldev Singh 773/W was not based on any misrepresentation by the petitioner but was based on wrongfully/mistakenly giving him the benefit of the policy instructions, referred to hereinabove. In view of the conclusions drawn above, the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned ordere dated 8.4.2002 in so far as fixation of his pay at the same level as that of his junior Baldev Singh is declined. However, the respondents are restrained from effecting recovery of excess payments made to the petitioner. In case any recovery has been made in excess, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within one month from today.” A somewhat similar view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kashmir Singh, SI v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP No.3108 of 2004), decided on October 5, 2004. 8. In view of the settled law, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be permitted to be effected from the petitioners. 9. (CWP No.3108 of 2004), decided on October 5, 2004. 8. In view of the settled law, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be permitted to be effected from the petitioners. 9. This petition is accordingly partly allowed and the impugned orders Annexures P-7 to P-20, so far as they seek to effect recovery from the petitioners, are hereby quashed. However, no interference is being made to the extent of re-fixation of the pay of the petitioners. 10. It is directed that if any amount has already been recovered from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, the same shall be refunded to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. As an abundant precaution, it is clarified that wherever the pension or other retiral benefits have been withheld by the respondents in order to adjust the recoverable amount, the same shall also be released forthwith but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. ----------------