IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 26, 2009
SMT. LAKHWINDER KAUR
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing order dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) in relation to recovery of
Rs.73,292/- from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity payable to the
petitioner.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
Civil Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2009 2
petitioner confines the claim only in challenge to recovery and not to re-
fixation of pay itself.
A perusal of letter dated 23.5.2008 (Annexure P-2) indicates
that the Senior Medical Officer, Chogawan, has informed the Accountant
General (A & E), Punjab, that a sum of Rs.73,292/- is recoverable on
account of over-payment made to the petitioner, from the Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity payable to the petitioner. Annexure P-3 has been
drawn accordingly.
In regard to recovery, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner has not played any fraud and has not
misrepresented the facts to actuate the initial wrong fixation of pay. 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, on instructions
from Shri Santokh Singh, Senior Assistant, Office of Senior Medical
Officer, Lopoke, District Amritsar, states that, indeed, there is no 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.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to
distinguish the judgment in Budh Ram’s case (supra).
In my considered opinion, in view of the conceded position
that the petitioner had not played any fraud and had not misrepresented
the facts in getting the pay erroneously fixed, the matter is covered by the
Civil Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2009 3
judgment in Budh Ram’s case (supra).
In view of the above, this petition is allowed to the limited
extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from
the petitioner of the amount already released in favour of the petitioner.
Consequently, it is further directed that any amount recovered in the
interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
October 26, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?