Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1831 (PNJ)

Paramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-10-26

AJAI LAMBA

body2009
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 31.7.2008 (An- nexure P - 3) in relation to recovery of Rs. 66,184/-from the Gratuity payable to the petitioner. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner confines the claim only in challenge to recovery and not to re - fixation of pay itself. 3. A perusal of letter dated 26.6.2008 (Annexure P - 2) indicates that the Senior Medical Officer, Lopoke, Block Chogawan, District Amritsar, has informed the Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, that a sum of Rs. 66, 184/- is recoverable on account of over - payment made to the petitioner, from the Death - cum - Retirement Gratuity payable to the petitioner. Annexure P - 3 has been drawn accordingly. 4. In regard to recovery, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not played any fraud and has not misrepresented the facts to actuate the initial wrong fixation of pay. In these regards, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in 2009(3) S.C.T. 333 : CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - State has not been able to distinguish the judgment in Budh Rains case (supra). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent - State, on instructions from Shri Santokh Singh, Senior Assistant, Office of Senior Medical Officer, Lopoke, District Amritsar, states that, indeed, there is no 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. 7. In my considered opinion, in view of the conceded position that the petitioner had not played any fraud and had not misrepresented the facts in getting the pay erroneously fixed, the matter is covered by the judgment in Budh Rams case (supra). 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount already released in favour of the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount already released in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, it is further held that any amount recovered in the interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order.