Smt. Narinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 2 September, 2009

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                               CHANDIGARH.




                                       Civil Writ Petition No. 11612 of 2009

                               DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009




SMT. NARINDER KAUR

                                                       ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                                       .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. CWP 11612 of

2009 (Smt.Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others) and CWP 11580

of 2009 (Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab and others), as common

questions of law and fact are involved.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while confining the claim

of the petitioners in these two petitions to challenge to recovery only,

contends that the petitioners have retired. After their retirement, it seems

that the pay of the petitioners has been refixed. Resultantly, recovery has

been ordered, which has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the

petitioners.

Civil Writ Petition No. 11612 of 2009 2

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

petitioners did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent the facts,

therefore, recovery cannot be effected from them. In these regards,

learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners had played any fraud or had misrepresented

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

finding that the present petitions are covered by the judgment rendered in

Budh Ram’s case (supra), the petitions are allowed to the limited extent

that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the

petitioners on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Consequently, it is

further held that any amount recovered in the interregnum period from the

retiral benefits of the petitioners, shall be refunded to the petitioners

within 4 months of 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?