IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13756 of 2009
Date of Decision: September 10, 2009
Ruby Mehta
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
In this petition filed under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari,
quashing Letter dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) vide
which the pay of the petitioner has been ordered to
be refixed. Further, orders have been passed for
effecting recovery.
Facts
pleaded in the petition indicate
that the petitioner had been paid excess amount on
account of wrong fixation of pay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that challenge is not to the refixation of
CWP No.13756 of 2009 [2]
pay. Challenge, however, is to recovery being
effected from the petitioner.
It has been 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 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
CWP No.13756 of 2009 [3]
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?