IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 13063 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 VAJINDER PAL SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The petitioner, a retired employee from the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, has approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure P-5). A perusal of order (Annexure P-3) indicates that the Audit Party of the Finance Department, on checking the Service Books of the Civil Writ Petition No. 13063 of 2009 2 employees of the Division where the petitioner was working, directed refixation of pay of the petitioner, on the basis of instructions, with effect from 1996. Consequently, recovery has been ordered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner vide the other impugned order (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the prayer in the petition is confined only to the issue of recovery being effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent the facts to actuate initial fixation of pay, therefore, recovery cannot be effected. In these regards, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts to actuate fixation of pay in the year 1996. Considering the law as laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra), this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Consequently, it is further held that any amount recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner in the interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of Civil Writ Petition No. 13063 of 2009 3 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?