MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.- Learned counsel for petitioner after examining reply filed by respondents and the Prospectus of Government College of Technology, Raiwind Road Campus, Lahore does not press the petition, provided in accordance with 'dictum laid by this Court in case Engineer-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 SC 207) respondents are restrained from recovering the amount already received by petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate-General in view of said reported judgment does no object to the same. Even otherwise it is quite apparent that if any payment has been made erroneously by respondents/employer and civil servants received it, under good faith with bona fide impression of his being entitled the same cannot he recovered because principle of locus paenitentiae would he applicable in such circumstances. However, for illucidation relevant observations from afore-quoted judgment are also reproduced below:- "It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal has also not disputed the contention of the appellant that respondent was not entitled to he fixed in Grade-II of National Pay Scale. The principle of locus poenitentiae was invoked by the learned Tribunal in aid of the respondent. Having gone through the facts of the case, we have come to the conclusion that this principle is not attracted in the present case. Additionally, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the authority which can pass an order, is entitled to vary, amend, add to or to rescind that order. The order under which the payment was made to the respondent had no sanction of law. Locus poenitentiae is the power of receding till a decisive step is taken. But it is not a principle of law that order once passed becomes irrevocable and it is past and closed transaction. If the order is illegal then perpetual rights cannot he gained on the basis of an illegal order. The appellants when came to know that on the 'basis of incorrect letter, the respondent was granted Grade-l1, they withdrew the said letter. The principle of locus poenitentiae would not apply in this case. However, as the respondent had received the amount on the bona fide belief, the appellant is not entitled to recover the amount drawn by the respondent during the period when latter remained in the field. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that the appellants had drawn Rs. 12,890.86 (Rupees twelve thousand, eight hundred, ninety and paisa eighty-six only) during this period but the Engineer-in-Chief had directed the recovery of Rs. 1,860.00 only (Rupees one thousand, eight . hundred, sixty and pais nil only). We consider that as far as the recovery of the amount in question is concerned, the principle of locus poenitentiae would he applicable and the appellants are not entitled to recover the amount. The appellants have themselves taken a liberal view and the recovery of only 12 months is being made."
For the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
However, the appellants would not recover even Rs. 1,860.00 (Rupees one thousand, eight hundred sixty and paisa nil only) from the respondent. There would be no order as to costs."
2. Accordingly with consent petition is converted into appeal and partly accepted. The claim pertaining to future payment demanded by the petitioner is dismissed. Whereas respondents are restrained from effecting recovery in respect of amount already paid to petitioner on the basis of advance increment. Petition on conversion into appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs.