Gopal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 September, 2009

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                                 Civil Writ Petition No.13899 of 2009
                                     Date of Decision: September 10, 2009


Gopal Singh
                                                     .....PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS


State of Punjab & Others
                                                   .....RESPONDENT(S)

                             .       .     .


CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -         Mr. S.S. Khaira, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab, for the respondents.

                             .       .     .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

In this petition, prayer is for quashing the

impugned orders to the extent of recovery from the petitioner.

Under Order dated 26.6.2009, Annexure P-1, it has been brought out

that proficiency step up was given from a wrong date. Accordingly,

refixation of pay has been ordered and recovery of amount released

as excess payment has been ordered.

Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner

neither played any fraud nor misrepresented the facts so as to

actuate wrong fixation of pay. In this view of the matter, the case of

the petitioner is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by
CWP No.13899 of 2009 [2]

the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799

of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others).

Learned counsel for the respondents has not been

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

to indicate that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented

facts.

In view of the above, it become evident that the

matter is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the

Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of

2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others).

The petition is allowed to the extent that the

respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the

petitioner on account of refixation of pay. Consequently, the

respondents are directed that if any recovery has been effected from

the petitioner, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a

period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this order.

                                                       (AJAI LAMBA)
September 10, 2009                                        JUDGE
avin

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

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