C.W.P. No. 11124 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11124 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 02, 2009 Hartej Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. P.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing office order dated 04.06.2009, Annexure P-6. 2. Perusal of order Annexure P-6 indicates that the Punjab National Bank addressed a letter to the petitioner Smt. Hartej Kaur w/o late Sh. Gurdev Singh to the effect that the basic pension of the petitioner was required to be reduced w.e.f. 02.11.2006 in accordance with the instructions. Due to late reduction in basic pay, a sum of Rs. 48,128/- is required to be recovered from the pension amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of C.W.P. No. 11124 of 2009 2 the petitioner died while in service. Family pension was released which was being paid. Now recovery has been ordered to be effected from the pension of the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had, in no way, actuated release of excess amount of family pension. The petitioner had no role to play in assessing the amount to be paid. In this view of the matter, the issue would be covered by judgment dated 22.05.2009 of this Court rendered in Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2799 of 2008. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute that the issue is covered by judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra). 5. I have considered the issue. 6. Perusal of order Annexure P-6 indicates that the pension of the petitioner was required to be reduced w.e.f. 02.11.2006. This, however, was not done and, therefore, excess amount was paid, which is sought to be recovered by way of impugned action. There is no material or evidence to indicate that the petitioner had played any role in actuating release of excess amount of pension and, therefore, in my considered opinion, the issue is covered by judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra). 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 8. Order Annexure P-6 is hereby quashed to the extent that the respondents shall not have any right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount released in excess. Consequently, it is directed that if any amount has been recovered in the interregnum period, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months of receipt of C.W.P. No. 11124 of 2009 3 certified copy of the order. 02.12.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?