CWP-24393 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (130) Harpal Kaur State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to (Annexure P for recovery of excess pension payment of Rs.9,90,651/ against the petitioner. 2. notice was served to the petitioner, and without complying of natural justice, the impugned demand has been raised. that there is no misrepresentation or the bank to effect the recovery 3. 4. appearance on behalf of the and waives service. He has filed 24393-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harpal Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Derabssi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate and Mr. Dheeraj Siwach, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4-Bank. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.4, wherethrough, for recovery of excess pension payment of Rs.9,90,651/ against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was served to the petitioner, and without complying of natural justice, the impugned demand has been raised. there is no misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner, entitling to effect the recovery from the petitioner Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of the contesting respondents No.3 and 4 and waives service. He has filed his memo of appear 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24393-2025 Date of Decision : 22.08.2025 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Kanwaljeet Singh Derabssi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate and Mr. Dheeraj Siwach, Advocate Bank. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 03.07.2025 , passed by respondent No.4, wherethrough, the demand notice for recovery of excess pension payment of Rs.9,90,651/-, has been raised Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause notice was served to the petitioner, and without complying with the principles of natural justice, the impugned demand has been raised. He further submits fraud played by the petitioner, entitling from the petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate, has caused respondents No.3 and 4, accepts notice memo of appearance today in the Court. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the the order dated 03.07.2025 the demand notice , has been raised show cause the principles He further submits fraud played by the petitioner, entitling At this stage, Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate, has caused , accepts notice ance today in the Court. MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.23 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24393 The same is taken on record. He undertakes to furnish duly executed vakalatnama weeks, from the date of passing of this order. 5. misconceived motion, as the order of recovery issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner should have opted to file reply to the said notice, instead of filing the case, the petitioner files reply, at this stage, the respondent consider her reply, and after affording due opportunity of hearing respondent- 6. No.3 and 4, at this stage, petition, with liberty to the petitioner notice, dated days from today, and thereafter, the respondent decision thereof, and would pass a speaking order, within one month, thereafter, after giving due opportunity of hearing to 7. grievance to the petitioner, she can take all the available remedy to her in accordance with law, to challenge the said 8. respondent- 9. August 22, 2025 Manpreet 24393-2025 The same is taken on record. He undertakes to furnish duly executed vakalatnama in his favour, with the Registry of this Court, within the next two weeks, from the date of passing of this order. He further submits that the instant petition, in fact, is a misconceived motion, as the order of recovery issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner should have opted to file reply to the said notice, instead of filing the instant writ petition. He further submits that in case, the petitioner files reply, at this stage, the respondent consider her reply, and after affording due opportunity of hearing Bank would pass a speaking order In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, at this stage, this Court, deems it apt to dispose of the instant writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner, to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice, dated 03.07.2025, with the respondent days from today, and thereafter, the respondent decision thereof, and would pass a speaking order, within one month, thereafter, after giving due opportunity of hearing to Needless to say that in case, the speaking order still cause grievance to the petitioner, she can take all the available remedy to her in accordance with law, to challenge the said It is made clear that till the final decision is taken by the Bank, no recovery shall be effected form the peti Consequently, the instant writ petition is , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 The same is taken on record. He undertakes to furnish duly executed in his favour, with the Registry of this Court, within the next two weeks, from the date of passing of this order. He further submits that the instant petition, in fact, is a misconceived motion, as the order of recovery is in fact, a show cause notice issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner should have opted to file reply to the instant writ petition. He further submits that in case, the petitioner files reply, at this stage, the respondent-Bank would consider her reply, and after affording due opportunity of hearing, the would pass a speaking order, accordingly. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents deems it apt to dispose of the instant writ to file a detailed reply to the show cause 03.07.2025, with the respondent-Bank, within a period of 15 days from today, and thereafter, the respondent-Bank shall take a final decision thereof, and would pass a speaking order, within one month, thereafter, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that in case, the speaking order still cause grievance to the petitioner, she can take all the available remedy as availabl to her in accordance with law, to challenge the said speaking order. the final decision is taken by the Bank, no recovery shall be effected form the petitioner. Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No The same is taken on record. He undertakes to furnish duly executed in his favour, with the Registry of this Court, within the next two He further submits that the instant petition, in fact, is a is in fact, a show cause notice issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner should have opted to file reply to the instant writ petition. He further submits that in would the In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents deems it apt to dispose of the instant writ to file a detailed reply to the show cause Bank, within a period of 15 Bank shall take a final decision thereof, and would pass a speaking order, within one month, Needless to say that in case, the speaking order still cause able the final decision is taken by the MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.23 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment