-1- CWP-25965-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110+258 CWP-25965-2025 (O&M) Decided on. 28.07.2026 Union of India and Others ….Petitioners Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench and Another ….Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOI. Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) CM-12527-CWP-2026 Present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record the reply on behalf of respondent No.2. Keeping in view, the contents mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Main case The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by respondent No.1, i.e. Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.63/266/2024 dated 28.05.2025 whereby Tribunal has set aside the recovery made from the respondent No.2, and retiral benefits payable to respondent No.2 was directed to be re- POONAM 2026.07.29 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CWP-25965-2025 (O&M) calculated by petitioners. 2. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners argues that though, the benefit of not allowing the recovery qua the excess payment made to the respondent No.2 is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih 2015 AIR SCW 501, but while passing the order by the ‘Tribunal’, even the refixation of the salary of the respondent No.2 has been set aside which is not correct as, nothing is on record to show that the said re-fixation was incorrect. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in case the restrained impugned upon the recovery of excess payment is kept intact, the respondent has no objection, in case, the refixation of the salary is allowed to operate. 4. Keeping in view above, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that though, no recovery of the excess amount will be made from the respondent, but the re-fixation of the salary of the respondent will allow to operate and setting aside the same by the Tribunal is quashed. The respondent No.2 will get only the salary as re-fixed and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.05.2025 is modified to the said extent. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 28.07.2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) poonam JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POONAM 2026.07.29 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document