HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16126 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.09.2011 **** Lalita Devi . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. SK Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. On the asking, Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondent(s) to file their reply(ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage. (2). The petitioner who is working as Sr. Clerk in the office of XEN, Investigation Division (IB), Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab, seeks quashing of the orders dated 31.05.2011 & 31.07.2011 (Annexure P2 & P3, respectively) whereby her pay has been refixed by reducing the Grade Pay to Rs.2400/- and as a result CWP No.16126 of 2011.doc - 2 – thereto, consequential recovery of Rs.70157/- is sought to be effected from her salary. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner, while confining her claim qua recovery only, states that the petitioner has never misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). (4). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 as well as the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. (5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the recovery order (Annexure P3) is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount if any already recovered from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Since the respondents have not filed any counter- reply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or played fraud etc. to gain CWP No.16126 of 2011.doc - 3 – the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 01.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge