IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11992 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 SURINDER SINGH DHILLON ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DD Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The petitioner, a retired person, has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure P-1), vide which recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner is sought to be effected from the Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity payable to the petitioner on his retirement. 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. Civil Writ Petition No. 11992 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not play any fraud and did not misrepresent the facts, therefore, recovery cannot be effected from him. 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, on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed. 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 petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, without deducting any amount on account of the proposed recovery. 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?