CWP-9709-2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 740 Sukhdev Singh State of Punjab and CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order dated 22.01.2004 (Annexure P4) ordered to be effected. 2. Reliance in the index CWP-16546-2003 title was admitted on 21.10.20 admitting this petition directed it to be heard along with it and the interim order also in the same terms, which was disposed of relevant of which reads thus: 2004(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN ***** Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order dated nnexure P4) by which refixation of pay was done and recovery was ordered to be effected. eliance in the index of the petition 2003 titled as Darshan Pal vs. State of Punjab and others, was admitted on 21.10.2003 and the Division admitting this petition directed it to be heard along with it and the interim order also in the same terms, which was disposed of relevant of which reads thus:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his claim qua the recovery only. She has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333, to urge that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant and he himself being - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9709-2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.04.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order dated which refixation of pay was done and recovery was of the petition was placed on pendency of Darshan Pal vs. State of Punjab and others, which the Division Bench on 06.07.2004 while admitting this petition directed it to be heard along with it and the interim order also in the same terms, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 10.02.2010, Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his claim qua the recovery only. She has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333, to urge that no recovery can be Learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant and he himself being .2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order dated which refixation of pay was done and recovery was was placed on pendency of which ench on 06.07.2004 while admitting this petition directed it to be heard along with it and the interim order vide judgment dated 10.02.2010, Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his claim qua the recovery only. She has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333, to urge that no recovery can be Learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant and he himself being ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9709-2004 3. Learned State counsel the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law 4. The present petition 22.04.2025 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2004(O&M) instrument in getting the monetary be down in the afore-stated Full Bench judgment cannot be extended to him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusal of the record as well as the plea taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner had merely represented that one of his juniors was drawing higher pay and on consideration of his representation, the Competent Authority stepped-up his pay in order to bring it at par with his junior. It is not the case of the respondents that junior of the petitioner was not drawing more pay than the petitioner. It was for the Competent Authority to see that it was not a case of any anomaly in pay. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be accused of deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to gain undeserving benefit. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that while re-fixation of the petitioner' withdrawal of the stepping-up benefit, are upheld but the consequential recovery notice is hereby set directed that if the respondents have already effected any recovery from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. As the petitioner has meanwhile retired from service, his retiral benefits shall also be re Dasti.” earned State counsel despite best efforts factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law. The present petition is disposed of in terms of (AMAN CHAUDHARY) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : - 2- instrument in getting the monetary benefit, the principles laid stated Full Bench judgment cannot be extended Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusal of the record as well as the plea taken by the respondents it, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner had merely represented that one of his juniors was drawing higher pay and on consideration of his representation, the up his pay in order to bring it at par with his junior. It is not the case of the respondents that junior of the petitioner was not drawing more pay than the petitioner. It was for the Competent Authority to see that it was not a case of any n pay. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be accused of deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to gain undeserving stated, the writ petition is allowed in part fixation of the petitioner's pay and up benefit, are upheld but the consequential recovery notice is hereby set-aside. It is further directed that if the respondents have already effected any recovery from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. As the petitioner has meanwhile retired from service, his retiral benefits shall also be re-fixed accordingly. espite best efforts has not been able to dispute factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned of in terms of Darshan Pal (supra) (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No nefit, the principles laid stated Full Bench judgment cannot be extended Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusal of the record as well as the plea taken by the respondents it, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner had merely represented that one of his juniors was drawing higher pay and on consideration of his representation, the up his pay in order to bring it at par with his junior. It is not the case of the respondents that junior of the petitioner was not drawing more pay than the petitioner. It was for the Competent Authority to see that it was not a case of any n pay. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be accused of deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to gain undeserving stated, the writ petition is allowed in part s pay and up benefit, are upheld but the aside. It is further directed that if the respondents have already effected any recovery within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. As the petitioner has meanwhile retired from dispute factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned (supra). ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.23 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document