IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9493 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 28, 2009 JOGINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DR Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 21.5.2009 (Annexure P-2), vide which the pay of the petitioner has been revised after a period of 13 years. Recovery to the extent of Rs.1,73,428/- has been Civil Writ Petition No. 9493 of 2009 2 ordered on account of wrong fixation of pay. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner confines the claim only in challenge to recovery and not to re- fixation of pay itself. In regard to recovery, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not played any fraud and has not misrepresented the facts to actuate the initial wrong fixation of pay. In these regards, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to indicate that the petitioner had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts, on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been able to distinguish the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). In my considered opinion, in view of the conceded position that the petitioner had not played any fraud and had not misrepresented the facts in getting the pay erroneously fixed, the matter is covered by the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). In view of the above, this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount already released in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, it is further directed that any amount recovered in the interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of Civil Writ Petition No. 9493 of 2009 3 receipt of certified copy of this order. October 28, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?