CWP-12142-2001 along with connected petition 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 Decided on:20.08.2025 1) CWP-12142-2001 (O&M) Bhanwati and others . . . Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents AND 2) CWP-3331-2003 (O&M) Kitab Singh . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) These petitions are being decided together as common questions of law on similar facts arise for consideration. For brevity, the facts are being noticed from CWP No.12142 of 2001, which has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24.07.2001, 09.08.2001, 04.08.2001, 07.08.2001, 11.08.2001 and 07.08.2001, Annexures P-11 to P-17, respectively. MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.22 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-12142-2001 along with connected petition 1 2. As per the facts apparent on record, the petitioners are erstwhile Supervisors of the Adult Education Scheme, and have been adjusted against Group-C post of Social Studies/Maths/Science Maters/Mistresses in the respondent Department. They were not held entitled to benefit of past service rendered under the Scheme, and their pay was accordingly re-fixed vide the impugned orders. At the same time, recovery was also ordered to be effected from them. However, while issuing notice of motion, the respondents were restrained from effecting recovery from the petitioners vide order dated 17.08.2001. 3. Learned Senior counsel contends that during the pendency of the petitions, the petitioners have already retired from service and as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334, the recovery of excess payment from retired Group-C employees, like the petitioners, cannot be effected. There is no allegation that they have mis-represented the Department in any manner. 4. Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the facts aformentioned. 5. In view of the above circumstances, these petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders only to the extent recovery has been ordered to be effected from the petitioners. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the case file of connected petition. (TRIBHUVAN DADHIYA) 20.08.2025 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.22 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment