CWP No.7605 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7605 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.03.2010 **** Niram Pal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner retired as a Sub Inspector from the Punjab Police on 30.11.2007. He is aggrieved at various orders passed by the respondents, whereby, recovery to the tune of Rs.1,38,496/- is sought to be effected after refixing his pay and after withdrawing certain service benefits which were earlier granted to him. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay arrears of ‘special pay’ at the correct rate keeping in view his designation. CWP No.7605 of 2008.doc - 2 – (2). Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner ever misrepresented the facts or played any fraud or deceived the authorities to secure any monetary gains and even if her pay was erroneously fixed. The alleged erroneous pay-fixation if at all was an action of the officials of the respondents. Therefore, no recovery of the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner can be effected as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009 (3) PLR 511 . The recovery orders are, accordingly, quashed. It is directed that if recovery has already been made and/or retiral benefit(s) has been withheld, the same shall be refunded/released forthwith but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (3). So far as the petitioner’s claim regarding refixation of his pay or grant of special pay keeping in view his rank, in my considered opinion, the contentions being based upon the factual matrix of the case, can effectively be gone into by the Officers’ Committee constituted under the orders CWP No.7605 of 2008.doc - 3 – of this Court on March 4, 2010 passed in CWP No.566 of 2010 (Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others). It is, accordingly, directed that rest of the contentions raised in this writ petition and/or which may be raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the aforesaid Committee in accordance with Rules/Government instructions within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, till the matter is decided by the Officers’ Committee, the respondents shall be at liberty to release the retiral benefit(s) to the petitioner on the basis of refixed/reduced pay. Suffice it observe that in case the Officers’ Committee makes recommendation in petitioner’s favour, the same shall be given effect immediately and consequential monetary benefit(s) shall also be granted to the petitioner forthwith. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 15.03.2010 vishal shonkar