IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 13063 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
VAJINDER PAL SINGH
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. RK Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, a retired employee from the Department of
Water Supply and Sanitation, has approached this Court by way of filing
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
12.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure P-5).
A perusal of order (Annexure P-3) indicates that the Audit
Party of the Finance Department, on checking the Service Books of the
Civil Writ Petition No. 13063 of 2009 2
employees of the Division where the petitioner was working, directed
refixation of pay of the petitioner, on the basis of instructions, with effect
from 1996. Consequently, recovery has been ordered from the retiral
benefits of the petitioner vide the other impugned order (Annexure P-5).
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 to actuate initial
fixation of pay, therefore, recovery cannot be effected. 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 to actuate fixation of pay in the year 1996.
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 retiral benefits of the petitioner
on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Consequently, it is further held
that any amount recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner in the
interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of
Civil Writ Petition No. 13063 of 2009 3
receipt of certified copy of this order.
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?