IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8140 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 7th July, 2010. Ram Sarup Petitioner through Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate Versus Chief Administrator & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Jatinder Dhanda, Advocate Ms. Renu Bala, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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] The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman who, after his discharge from the Army w.e.f. 31.3.1979, joined the Haryana State Agricultural Marking Board as a Driver Operator on 21.6.1982. The petitioner also continued to draw pension from the Central Government for his Army service along with the Dearness Allowance component. Similarly, the Board also continued to pay him dearness allowance on his basic pay till he retired from the Board's service on 31.03.2003. After his retirement, the petitioner has been served with the impugned order dated 5.11.2003 [Annexure P-1] whereby a sum of Rs.31,670/- has been deducted from his gratuity towards the over- payment of dearness allowance on the plea that the petitioner was not entitled to draw double dearness allowance from the Central and the State Governments simultaneously. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Upon notice of motion, respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their respective reply/affidavits. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.31,670/- has been deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner on account of double payment of dearness allowance. The respondents, however, have no where averred that the petitioner misrepresented the facts or played any fraud or deceived the authorities to secure the inadmissible monetary benefit. That being so, no recovery could be effected from the petitioner especially after his retirement as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors.2009[3] PLR, 511. The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the recovery order dated 5.11.2003 [Annexure P-1] is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of rs.31,670/- deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum. Since respondent No. 1 has taken the stand that the amount deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner has been refunded to respondent No. 2, the second respondent is directed to refund the said amount to respondent No. 1 for its onward payment to the petitioner. Disposed of. Dasti. July 07, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE