IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 12935 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th February, 2010. Ravinderjit Kaur Petitioner through Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. 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) In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.03.2009 [Annexure P-5] whereby recovery of Rs.30,784/- is sought to be affected from him who has since retired from the post of Superintendent Grade I on 31.10.2009 from the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Punjab. The petitioner also seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of her retiral benefits. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. In Para 3 thereof, it is specifically pleaded that the petitioner submitted her pension papers on 15.10.2008, i.e., 15 days before her retirement, due to which the delay has occurred in payment of the retiral dues. There appears to be some merit in the plea taken by the respondents. Otherwise also, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been paid her retiral dues within seven months of her retirement. As regards the recovery sought to be affected from the petitioner, the respondents have no where averred that the petitioner ever misled the authorities or concealed the material facts so as to secure the 'monetary gains' for herself. The error, if any, was attributable to the authorities concerned and not to the petitioner. The principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram V State of Haryana & Ors., 2009[3] SCT, 333 are, thus, fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the respondents, in the light of the fact situation, can not be permitted to affect recovery from the petitioner. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part, the order dated 20.3.2009 [Annexure P-5] insofar as it pertains to recovery of Rs.30,784/- is hereby set aside. The withheld amount of gratuity is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received, failing which she shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the afore-stated amount. However, the action regarding re-fixation of the petitioner's pay warrants no interference by this Court and the writ petition, to that extent, is dismissed. Disposed of. Dasti. February 10, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE