IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14840 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 20, 2009 Paramjit Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). 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 Annexure P-1 as also recovery orders, Annexure P-2 to P-7 issued on various dates as mentioned in the petition. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners are retired persons who served in the office of respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division No.1, PWD B & R, CWP No.14840 of 2009 [2] Patiala; and Superintending Engineer, PWD B & R, Circle No.2, Patiala. It seems that an audit was conducted whereupon an issue in regard to grant of proficiency step-up was raised. It transpired that pay had wrongly been fixed. On refixation of pay, various orders have been passed ordering recovery from the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner do not challenge the pay fixation itself. Challenge is only to recovery. On the issue of recovery, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had not played any fraud or misrepresented the facts so as to actuate wrong fixation of pay and grant of proficiency step-up. Under these circumstances, the matter is covered by Judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the 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 contends that indeed there is no material or evidence to indicate that petitioners had played fraud or misrepresented facts so as to actuate excess release of salary and allowances. Under CWP No.14840 of 2009 [3] the circumstances, judgment in Budh Ram’s case (supra) cannot be distinguished. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the matter is covered by Judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). The petition is allowed. Orders, Annexure P-1 to P-7 are quashed, to the extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery for the amount already released to the petitioners. Consequently, the respondents are directed that if any recovery has been effected from the petitioners, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) November 20, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?