IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19918 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 12, 2009 Suresh Chander .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Suresh Chander, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Orders dated 11.2.2008 and 18.3.2008, Annexure P-1 and P-4 respectively. Perusal of Annexure P-1 shows that Audit & Accounts Department indicated that the petitioner was entitled to only one increment on promotion as Central Head Teacher. In this view CWP No.19918 of 2008 [2] of the matter, pay of the petitioner was directed to be refixed and the amount paid in excess recovered. Annexure P-4 is to the same effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresented the facts to actuate wrong release of pay. The respondents, under the circumstances, are not entitled to effect recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner confines the claim only to recovery part of the orders. In regard to the limited prayer, learned counsel states that the matter would be covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). Learned counsel for the respondents states that indeed, there is no material to show that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented facts for initial fixation of pay. In view of the above, it remains the conceded position that the matter is covered by Budh Ram’s case (supra). Considering the above, the petition CWP No.19918 of 2008 [3] is allowed in terms of judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). It is held that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents are directed that if any recovery has been effected from the petitioner, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) November 12, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?