IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8967 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 17, 2010. Harbans Lal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a retired Sub Divisional Engineer from the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Government of Punjab. It is positive case that the impugned recovery of Rs.51,308/- has been effected from his D.C.R.G. after his retirement w.e.f. 31.1.2010, on account of re- C.W.P.No .8967 of 2010 2 fixation of pay. If that is so, the order of impugned recovery cannot sustain in the light of Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned recovery order dated 26.3.2010/1.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. If the recovery has already been effected from the petitioner, it is directed that the respondents shall refund the recovered amount within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. However, if the recovery order is based upon some other administrative reason, the respondents shall be at liberty to seek review/modification of this order within a period of six months. Dasti. May 17, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE