IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21622 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 20, 2009 Harjinder Kaur & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petition was admitted on 23.12.2008. In regard to stay, notice was issued. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the petitioners confine their claim only in challenge to recovery, and therefore, let the matter be taken up and decided today itself. Learned counsel for the respondents also prays for the main matter to be taken up today for final disposal. On the joint request of learned CWP No.21622 of 2008 [2] counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. The 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 Orders Annexure P-1 to P-9 passed on various dates. Excess amount had been paid to the petitioners on account of salary and allowances and consequently, recovery from the salary of the petitioners has been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had not played any fraud or misrepresented the facts so as to actuate release of wrong salary or excess amount of salary and allowances. Under the circumstances, the respondents cannot effect recovery from the petitioners in the light of 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 had misrepresented facts so as to actuate excess release of salary and allowances. Under the circumstances, judgment in Budh Ram’s case CWP No.21622 of 2008 [3] (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-9 are quashed, to the extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery of the amount already released to the petitioners. Consequently, the respondents are directed that if any recovery has already 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?