IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7366 of 2004 Date of Decision: December 23, 2009 Veena Kataria .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order Annexure P-13 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Principal, Government Victoria Girls Senior Secondary, Old Lal Bagh School, Patiala, vide which legal notice of the petitioner has been rejected and recovery amounting to Rs.1,27,774/- has been ordered. Challenge is also to Annexure P-2 and P-6. CWP No.7366 of 2004 [2] Order Annexure P-2 dated 16.1.2003 indicates that while considering the pension case of the petitioner, the Principal has communicated to the petitioner that pension officer had raised an objection that pay was fixed in excess of the permissible grade. Accordingly, excess amount has been paid to the tune of Rs.1,27,619/-. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was asked to make the deposit or the same was to be deducted out of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). Perusal of Order Annexure P-6 indicates that office of Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, vide communication dated 13.3.2003 has directed the School to disburse Death Cum Retirement Gratuity to the retiree after adjusting outstanding Government dues. Order Annexure P-13 is an order passed in response to legal notice after directions were issued by this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.4466 of 2003. The claim of the petitioner under the notice against recovery of Rs.1,27,774/- has been rejected. The order of recovery has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pay of the petitioner and the grade under which pay was given, were not actuated by the petitioner by way of fraud or CWP No.7366 of 2004 [3] misrepresentation. Learned counsel states that challenge is only to recovery and not to refixation of pay itself. The case of the petitioner, under the circumstances, is covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the 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 states that because the prayer is confined only to recovery, the matter would be covered by Budh Ram’s case (supra), as there is no evidence or material to indicate that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented the facts in getting the pay wrongly fixed initially. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes 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 in regard to the limited prayer against recovery. It is held that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery of the amount already released to the petitioner. Consequently, CWP No.7366 of 2004 [4] 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) December 23, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?