IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1296 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 03, 2009 Paramjit Singh Sekhon .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order 29.10.2001 (Annexure P-4) whereby order of recovery of Rs.17,666/- on account of wrong fixation of pay has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that crux of the issue is whether the respondents could effect the recovery on account of refixation of pay, particularly, when CWP No.1296 of 2008 [2] refixation of pay itself is under challenge. The petitioner confines the claim only to the extent of recovery. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has not actuated fixation of pay. The petitioner has not played any fraud nor misrepresented the facts and therefore, the respondents have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner. The contention is supported by the law laid down 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). It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot. The civil suit was decreed. The petitioner even filed an execution application. In the meantime, however, the respondents have passed order, Annexure P-4, wherein it has been said that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. A dispute has been raised in regard to the fact whether opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not. While learned counsel for the petitioner contends that CWP No.1296 of 2008 [3] opportunity of hearing was not given, learned counsel for the respondents asserts that opportunity of hearing, as required by law, was given. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents states that one opportunity would be given to the petitioner to appear in the office of District Education Officer (S), Faridkot to project his case. In view of the above, Order Annexure P-4 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Education Officer (S), Faridkot on 22.12.2009 with a complete and consolidated representation/ petition. The District Education Officer is directed to give hearing to the petitioner and adjudicate his claim vide a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months thereof. In case, the District Education Officer wants to give further hearing to the petitioner, it would be his discretion. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (AJAI LAMBA) December 03, 2009 JUDGE avin CWP No.1296 of 2008 [4] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?