C.W.P. No. 22994 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 22994 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 19, 2011 Jarnail Singh s/o Late Sh. Dilbagh Singh .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. B.S.Sehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the impugned office order No. 1430-31 dated 01.12.2010 (Annexure P-8), whereby a sum of ` 83,108/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner as per the order and instructions of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and as per the pre-audit conducted by the Audit Officer, the salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed @ ` 5800/- per month from November, 2010. C.W.P. No. 22994 of 2010 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the salary of the petitioner could not have been reduced as the enhanced salary was granted to the petitioner as per the decision taken by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies himself in exercise of his powers under Rule 28 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1963'). He contends that even if there was a power with the Registrar to pass such an order of reduction in pay, as the petitioner had neither misrepresented nor misled the respondents for fixing his pay at a higher level, no recovery can be effected from him in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333. Counsel for respondent No. 3 could not dispute the fact that the petitioner, in no manner, can be held responsible for the fixation of his pay at a higher level as the same was done in consonance with the instructions received from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and there was no role on the part of the petitioner who have got the pay fixation done. He also conceded that there was neither any misrepresentation, fraud nor intimidation on the part of the petitioner. He further states that the order of re-fixation of his salary was passed as per the instructions issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and, therefore, respondent No. 3 is bound by the said instructions. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, states that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to pursue his claim before the competent authority with regard to pay fixation. However, recovery amounting to ` 83,108/- ordered from the petitioner may not be effected in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra). C.W.P. No. 22994 of 2010 3 Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the recovery, which has been ordered to be effected from the petitioner, cannot be made in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra) as the petitioner had neither misrepresented nor misled or committed any fraud or intimidation on the respondents in getting his pay refixed at a higher level rather the same was done on instructions and order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Rule 28 of the Rules, 1963. Accordingly, the order with regard to the recovery to be effected from the petitioner cannot be given effect to. The present writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his claim for the higher pay with the competent authority. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) May 19, 2011 JUDGE pj