IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18783 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.08.2011 Ram Kishan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to quash the order whereby recovery of ` 17,312/- from the pension of the petitioner is sought to be effected. Notice of motion was issued and the recovery was stayed. The respondents have filed reply wherein it is stated that they have generated pension paper and have not ordered any recovery from the pension of the petitioner. It is further stated that the information of effecting recovery of ` 17,312/- is hypothetical and is not sustainable. It is, thus, pleaded that writ petition is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has invited my attention to the contempt petition, which he has filed and which is tagged alongwith this case, to point out that the respondents have mentioned in the revised pension order that excess amount paid Civil Writ Petition No. 18783 of 2010 -2- may be recovered. Though no notice has been issued in the contempt petition but this fact cannot be denied and is quite apparent from Annexure P-3, annexed with contempt petition, which is a communication initiated by the Accountant General, Haryana and is addressed to the Treasury Officer, Rohtak. This order has been passed by the Accounts Officer despite direction by this Court to stay the recovery. This reveals violation of the order passed by this Court. Apart from this position, the respondents are required to explain as to how contradictory plea is being raised without even checking the record. Since the respondents have filed the reply stating that they are not going to effect recovery, the writ petition is allowed. The recovery order, if any, is quashed. Notice, however, is issued to the respondents in contempt petition to explain as to why proceedings under Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against them for violating the order passed by this Court for 04.10.2011. August 03, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE