IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 205 RANJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: Present: TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA quashing the order dated 06.04.2004, Annexure P was reduced and recovery was ordered to be effected. 2. Annexure ‘A’, submits that the petitioner is n family pension in view of the applicable rules. 3. 23.02.2016, recovery of excess amount paid to an employee cannot be effected after retirement. That be effect recovery from his legal representatives either. 4. impugned order only to the extent it orders recovery of over petitioner. May 01, 2026 Jaspreet Kaur IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RANJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Ms. Yaashica, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia quashing the order dated 06.04.2004, Annexure P was reduced and recovery was ordered to be effected. Learned State counsel, referring to the instructions dated 24.04.2026, Annexure ‘A’, submits that the petitioner is no more and his wife is receiving family pension in view of the applicable rules. It is also not in dispute that as per Government instructions dated 23.02.2016, recovery of excess amount paid to an employee cannot be effected after retirement. That being the position, the respondents cannot be permitted to effect recovery from his legal representatives either. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of by setting aside the impugned order only to the extent it orders recovery of over May 01, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16457-2004 Date of decision: May 01, 2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.04.2004, Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioner’s pay was reduced and recovery was ordered to be effected. Learned State counsel, referring to the instructions dated 24.04.2026, o more and his wife is receiving It is also not in dispute that as per Government instructions dated 23.02.2016, recovery of excess amount paid to an employee cannot be effected tion, the respondents cannot be permitted to effect recovery from his legal representatives either. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of by setting aside the impugned order only to the extent it orders recovery of over-payment against the (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE  Yes/No Yes/No ...Petitioner ...Respondents certiorari 6, whereby the petitioner’s pay Learned State counsel, referring to the instructions dated 24.04.2026, o more and his wife is receiving It is also not in dispute that as per Government instructions dated 23.02.2016, recovery of excess amount paid to an employee cannot be effected tion, the respondents cannot be permitted to The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of by setting aside the nst the JASPREET KAUR 2026.05.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh