CWP No.13658 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13658 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.05.2010 **** Surinder Kaur Bedi . . . . 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. Nirmal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.05.2006 (Annexure P1), whereby, recovery of Rs.72,656/- is sought to be effect from his Gratuity on account of wrong fixation of pay. (2). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his challenge qua ‘recovery’ only and submits that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No.697 of 2010 titled as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others, which was decided in CWP No.13658 of 2009.doc - 2 – the light of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the operative part whereof reads as under:- “Following the dictum in Budh Ram’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed in part; the action of the respondents in ordering recovery of the excess payments received by the petitioner as a result of Stepping-up of his pay or grant of ACP is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of his pay and consequential re-determination of the retiral benefits are upheld. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Since the respondents have not filed any counter- reply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” (3). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in the above-reproduced terms. (4). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 20.05.2010 vishal shonkar