C.W.P. No. 10410 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10410 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: November 18, 2009 Sant Ram .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 15.05.2008 Annexure P-8 whereby the pay of the petitioner has been refixed. Further prayer is for quashing order dated 21.05.2008 Annexure P-9 whereby recovery has been ordered to be made from the gratuity of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the challenge is confined to recovery only. The petitioner accepts the refixation in pay. Perusal of order Annexure P-9 indicates that the pension case of the petitioner was returned after removal of objection. The pay of the petitioner was refixed after withdrawing 16/24 year increment granted under C.W.P. No. 10410 of 2008 2 ACP scheme on revision of pay scale. Recovery of Rs. 56,390/- has been ordered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresented facts so as to actuate grant of increments under ACP scheme and, therefore, the matter is covered by judgment dated 22.05.2009 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2799 of 2008. The respondents, under the circumstances, have no right to effect recovery. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute that the issue of recovery would be covered by judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent states that indeed there is no material to show that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts or had played any fraud to actuate grant of increments under ACP scheme. In view of the above, this petition is allowed to a limited extent in view of judgment dated 22.05.2009 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2799 of 2008. The respondents would have no right to effect any recovery from the remuneration payable to the petitioner. In case, in the interregnum period, any recovery has already been effected from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 18.11.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?