IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 13165 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 MOHINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who has already retired, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 10.12.2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 13165 of 2009 2 (Annexure P-1), order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-4), order dated 3.2.2009 (Annexure P-5), order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P-7). At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the prayer in the petition is confined only to the issue of recovery being effected from the petitioner. It has been pointed out that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the respondents on account of giving benefit of annual increment from a wrong date. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent the facts to actuate initial fixation of pay, therefore, recovery cannot be effected. In these regards, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to distinguish the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to indicate that the petitioner had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts to actuate fixation of pay in the year 1996. Considering the law as laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra), this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Consequently, it is further held Civil Writ Petition No. 13165 of 2009 3 that any amount recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner in the interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 2, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?