IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9994 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 28, 2009 TALWINDER KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. BS Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, 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 order dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P-2), by virtue of which recovery of Rs.80,094/- has been ordered from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Civil Writ Petition No. 9994 of 2009 2 payable to the petitioner. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner confines the claim only in challenge to recovery and not to re- fixation of pay itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had no role to play in allowing proficiency step up to the petitioner. The petitioner had not played any fraud and had not misrepresented 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 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 proficiency step up was allowed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been able to distinguish the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). In my considered opinion, in view of the conceded position that the petitioner had not played any fraud and had not misrepresented the facts in allowing proficiency step up to the petitioner, the matter is covered by the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). In view of the above, 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 further directed that any amount recovered in the Civil Writ Petition No. 9994 of 2009 3 interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. October 28, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?