IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13942 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 10, 2009 Baljinder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Letter dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) and Notice (Annexure P-2). The impugned orders have been passed to the effect that pay of petitioner be refixed and recovery from retiral benefits of the petitioner be effected. Vide Letter, Annexure P-1, while considering the pension case of the petitioner, CWP No.13942 of 2009 [2] it was noticed that proficiency step up was wrongly given to the petitioner during the course of service. The facts having come to notice of the respondents, Letter Annexure P-1 and resultant order of recovery were passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that challenge is only to recovery. It has been contended that the petitioner neither played any fraud nor misrepresented the facts so as to actuate wrong fixation of pay. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Hon’ble 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 has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to indicate that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented facts. In view of the above, it become evident that the matter is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). The petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner on account CWP No.13942 of 2009 [3] of refixation of pay. 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) September 10, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?