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?