IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12105 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
SURJIT KAUR
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. SK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
Ms.Surjit Kaur, petitioner, who retired on 31.3.2009, has filed
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
Civil Writ Petition No. 12105 of 2009 2
28.7.2009 (Annexure P-4), vide which recovery is sought to be effected
from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. In the impugned order
(Annexure P-4), it has been stated that the pay of the petitioner had been
erroneously fixed. On refixation of pay, amount is recoverable from the
petitioner.
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 on account of
which the pay was erroneously fixed, therefore, recovery cannot be
effected from him. 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, on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed.
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 petitioner on account of
erroneous fixation of pay. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to
Civil Writ Petition No. 12105 of 2009 3
release the retiral benefits of the petitioner without deducting any amount
on account of the proposed recovery.
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?