CWP No.15770 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15770 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.02.2010 **** Gurdip Kaur . . . . 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. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined as JBT teacher in the Education Department, Punjab and retired as such on 31.03.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. She seeks quashing of the order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure P2), whereby, recovery of Rs.92644/- has been ordered to be effected from her on the ground of over-payment due to erroneously grant of proficiency step-up increments. (2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto counsel for the parties have been heard. CWP No.15770 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he confines his challenge to the recovery order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure P2) only. He relies upon Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009 and urges that in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances, no recovery can be allowed to be effected as the petitioner never mis-represented the facts nor misled the authorities while seeking the aforesaid benefit. The mistake, if any, is on the part of the departmental authorities which has now been detected and rectified. (4). After going through the pleadings, I find that the recovery notice cannot sustain as ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram’s case (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part; the order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure P2) to the extent of ordering recovery of Rs.92644/- from the petitioner is hereby quashed. The recovery, if any, already made shall be refunded to the petitioner and all the retiral benefits, if any, shall be released to the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the CWP No.15770 of 2009.doc - 3 – date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the order to the extent of re-fixation of pay is upheld. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.02.2010 vishal shonkar