IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9622 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 SHEETAL KUMARI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing condition No.12 of order dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.2, under which respondent No.3 has been directed to recover a sum of Rs.61,420/- from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner. Challenge is also to order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.3, vide which recovery has been effected from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 9622 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the challenge in the petition is confined only to the issue of recovery being effected from the petitioner. A perusal of order dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) indicates that the office of the Accountant General, Punjab, has directed the Superintending Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Circle, Punjab, while clarifying the qualifying service of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs.61,420/- be recovered from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner. Vide order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-2), the Superintending Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Circle, Punjab, has sent a letter to the petitioner as also the Accountant General, Punjab, and District Treasury Officer, Punjab, to effect the recoverey, as provided in order (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that the pay of the petitioner was erroneously fixed. The error has been corrected on account of which the recovery has been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent the facts. 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 Civil Writ Petition No. 9622 of 2009 3 indicate that the petitioner 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), this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount already released in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, it is directed that any amount recovered in the interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner 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?