CWP No.6789 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6789 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.01.2010 **** Amarjit Agnihotri . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner impugns the order dated 25.07.2005 (Annexure P3) as well as memo dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P6), whereby, the pay of his deceased wife has been reduced and re-fixed and consequential recovery of Rs.62044/- has been ordered. (2). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he confines his challenge to the recovery order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P6) only. He relies upon the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh CWP No.6789 of 2007.doc - 2 – Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009 and urges that in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances, no recovery can be effected by the respondents. (3). Learned State counsel fairly states that the order of recovery cannot sustain as the deceased employee never misled or concealed facts for monetary gains. (4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part; the order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P6) to the extent of ordering recovery of Rs.62044/- from the wife of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. (5). However, the order dated 25.07.2005 (Annexure P3) regarding re-fixation is upheld. The recovery, if any, already made shall be refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.01.2010 vishal shonkar