IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12828 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 BALDEV KRISHAN ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of three petitions viz. CWP 12828 of 2009 (Baldev Krishan v. State of Punjab and others), CWP 12910 of 2009 (Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others) and CWP 12960 of 2009 (Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab and others), as common questions of law and fact are involved. The prayer in these petitions is against the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Civil Writ Petition No. 12828 of 2009 2 The petitioners, in all the three cases, are retired employees of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. The action to which challenge has been made, is to the recovery effected from the petitioners on account of erroneous fixation of pay, during the course of service of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases states that the petitioners confine the claim only in challenge to recovery. In regard to recovery, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent the facts so as to actuate the erroneous fixation of pay and, therefore, the respondents have no right to effect recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioners. In these regards, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to distinguish the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to indicate that the petitioners had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts, on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed. Considering the law as laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra), these petitions are allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioners on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Consequently, it is Civil Writ Petition No. 12828 of 2009 3 further held that any amount recovered in the interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioners within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 2, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?