IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20031 of 2004 Date of Decision: December 03, 2009 Mohan Singh Pannu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.P. Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Letter dated 6.10.2003 (Annexure P-7) whereby pay of the petitioner has been reduced w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 1.1.1999. In consequence to the refixation of pay, recovery of Rs.16,676/- has been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contends that the petitioner CWP No.20031 of 2004 [2] confines the claim in challenge to recovery only. Pay refixation is accepted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the pay was fixed by the respondents. The petitioner had no role to play therein. Petitioner has neither played any fraud nor misrepresented the facts. Learned counsel, under the circumstances, states that the issue would be covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). Learned counsel for the respondents contends that because the claim is confined to recovery only and there is no evidence or material to indicate any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in fixation of pay, the issue would be covered by Budh Ram’s case (supra). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the matter is covered by Judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). The petition is allowed to the extent CWP No.20031 of 2004 [3] that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery of the amount already released to the petitioner. (AJAI LAMBA) December 03, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?