IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 13251 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 RAVINDER KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SK Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure P-6) and 30.6.2009 (Annexure P-7), under which the respondents have proposed recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner is scheduled to retired on 30.9.2009. The recovery has been proposed on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Civil Writ Petition No. 13251 of 2009 2 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 on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed, therefore, recovery cannot be effected from him. 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, on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner without deducting any amount on account of erroneous fixation of pay. 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?