IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6944 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 29, 2009 Gurbachan Singh Khara .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. O.P. Kamboj, 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 Order dated 18.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Circle Education Officer, Faridkot, whereby benefit of higher pay scale which was given to the petitioner, is being withdrawn and recovery has been ordered for the amount paid to the petitioner in excess. Learned counsel for the petitioner, CWP No.6944 of 2009 [2] at the outset, states that the petitioner confines the claim only in challenge to recovery. Learned counsel states that the petitioner had not played fraud and has not misrepresented the facts. The benefit was given to the petitioner by the Principal of the School where the petitioner had been serving. After 8 years of retirement, the same cannot be taken back. Learned counsel contends that on the issue of recovery, the matter is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by 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 has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to indicate that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented facts. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that the issue is covered by Budh Ram’s case (supra). In view of the above, it become evident that the matter is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others CWP No.6944 of 2009 [3] vs. State of Haryana & Others). The petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner on account of refixation of pay. Consequently, the respondents are directed that if any recovery has been effected from the petitioner, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) October 29, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?