Civil Writ Petition No.13082 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 03, 2009 Sumer Chand Suppal ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.M.K.Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was appointed as a JBT Teacher in the year 1963, has filed this writ petition to impugn the order whereby some recovery has been ordered to be effected from his pension and pensionary benefits on the ground that his pay was wrongly fixed and same has now been corrected. The petitioner having been appointed as J.B.T.Teacher Civil Writ Petition No.13082 of 2007 : 2 : was promoted as S.S.Master on 1.1.1973. JST Scale was granted to some of those employees, who had improved their qualification during service. The petitioner could not avail the benefit of this scale. The respondent-department also gave one additional increment w.e.f. 2.4.1979 to the Teachers, who have not availed JST scale. Same was also denied to the petitioner. He was, however, granted an additional increment in order to protect his pay from his immediate junior. The petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2003. The last pay drawn by the petitioner at that time was Rs.9700/- per month as basic pay in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10050. The pension was accordingly granted to the petitioner. Part of the gratuity due to the petitioner was withheld for which the petitioner filed a writ petition. During the pendency of those proceedings, it was disclosed that the petitioner's pay has been wrongly fixed and is now required to be fixed at Rs.9350/- per month as basic pay. On this count, some recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would also point out that the pay of the petitioner was rightly fixed and he was rightly granted second ACP as he had never received any step up or promotion during the course of his service career from 1973 onwards. He would also point out that large number of Teachers, similarly situated, have been granted second ACP and are getting the pay scale as was given to the petitioner earlier. Even if there was some wrong fixation of the pay of the petitioner, this was not on the basis of a misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. In this background, the action of the respondents in recovering the excess payment made from the pension of the petitioner cannot be sustained. It has Civil Writ Petition No.13082 of 2007 : 3 : consistently been held that any excess payment made, which is not attributed to any misrepresentation or misleading on the part of the petitioner, cannot be recovered. The action of the respondents in recovering excess payment, if any made, thus cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. Whether the pay of the petitioner has now been rightly fixed or whether he has been rightly granted second ACP or not is an issue which has not been clearly spelt out in the writ petition. Let the petitioner make a representation in this regard to show that his pay was rightly fixed at the time of his retirement and he is entitled to receive the same and that his pension is also required to be fixed accordingly. The petitioner would also be at liberty to point out the cases of similarly situated persons who are drawing the pay which the petitioner was earlier drawing to substantiate his submission. If the petitioner does so within one month from today, the respondents shall take action to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. In case the petitioner is aggrieved against any such order passed, he would be at liberty to take recourse available to him under law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. August 03, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE