IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10783 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 15, 2009 Prem Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Notice of motion was issued while noticing that challenge in this petition is to recovery from the petitioner. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, it has been pleaded that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) under which recovery has been ordered from the petitioner. Perusal of Annexure P-1 indicates that excess payment was given to the petitioner CWP No.10783 of 2009 [2] on account of annual increments in regular pay scale instead of subsistence allowance as Ziledar, hence the order of recovery. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the matter is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). Reply has been filed in Court today which is taken on record. From the perusal of reply, it becomes evident that it is not the case of the respondents that petitioner had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts for release of annual increments in regular pay scale. The error was on the part of the respondents for which the petitioner cannot be held liable. Considering the above, I am of the considered opinion that the issue is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). In view of the above, the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents are CWP No.10783 of 2009 [3] directed that if any recovery has been effected in the interregnum period from the petitioner, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) September 15, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?