Surjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 2 September, 2009

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                             CHANDIGARH.




                                      Civil Writ Petition No. 12105 of 2009

                             DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009




SURJIT KAUR

                                                      ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                                      .... RESPONDENT(S)




CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA




PRESENT: Mr. SK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

             Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.




AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

Ms.Surjit Kaur, petitioner, who retired on 31.3.2009, has filed

this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for

issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated
Civil Writ Petition No. 12105 of 2009 2

28.7.2009 (Annexure P-4), vide which recovery is sought to be effected

from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. In the impugned order

(Annexure P-4), it has been stated that the pay of the petitioner had been

erroneously fixed. On refixation of pay, amount is recoverable from the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the prayer in the

petition is confined only to the issue of recovery being effected from the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent the facts on account of

which the pay was erroneously fixed, therefore, recovery cannot be

effected from him. In these regards, learned counsel for the petitioner

relies on Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of

2008 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on

22.5.2009.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to

distinguish the judgment in Budh Ram’s case (supra).

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been

able to draw the attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to

indicate that the petitioner had played any fraud or had misrepresented the

facts, on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed.

Considering the law as laid down in Budh Ram’s case (supra),

this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would

have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner on account of

erroneous fixation of pay. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to
Civil Writ Petition No. 12105 of 2009 3

release the retiral benefits of the petitioner without deducting any amount

on account of the proposed recovery.

September 2, 2009                                       ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                            JUDGE



1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?