CWP-24775-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 121 SUMAN DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Ms. Santosh Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed quashing the order dated has been directed to deposit an amount of respondents/Department session 2019-20 2. As per facts apparent on record Lecturer the petitioner workload being less remuneration at the rate of Accordingly, an amount of She approached this Court by filing CWP quashing of the office salary had been reduced to pay the difference of was disposed of vide order dated 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: SUMAN DEVI Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Ms. Santosh Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia quashing the order dated 17.07.2025, Annexure P directed to deposit an amount of respondents/Department as excess payment made to her during 20. As per facts apparent on record the petitioner was paid remuneration load being less. On account of less workload she was entitled to remuneration at the rate of ₹35,400, instead an amount of ₹85,000 was deducted from her salary in 2021 approached this Court by filing CWP- quashing of the office orders dated 16.01.2021 salary had been reduced from ₹57,700 to ₹35 to pay the difference of excess salary paid amounting was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2024 by setting aside the office orders, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24775-2025 Decided On: 26.08.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, alia, seeking a writ of certiorari , Annexure P-3, whereby the petitioner directed to deposit an amount of ₹2,19,023 with the as excess payment made to her during the academic As per facts apparent on record, while working as Extension paid remuneration ₹57,700 per month, despite the On account of less workload she was entitled to instead of ₹57,700 per month. was deducted from her salary in 2021. -6835-2021, inter alia, seeking 16.01.2021 and 21.01.2021, whereby her ₹35,400, and she had been directed amounting ₹2,98,000. The petition by setting aside the office orders, Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, certiorari , whereby the petitioner with the academic working as Extension the On account of less workload she was entitled to . . , seeking her been directed . The petition by setting aside the office orders, Aman Dua 2025.09.04 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-24775-2025 and directing the respondents to pass a fresh order opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and considering her response In these circumstances, after issuing a show cause notice the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 amount of ₹2,19,023 3. Learned State counse impugned order ha petitioner vide letter dated of the said amount after details were furnished vide undertaking as well as the memo retained on the case file as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact however, contend service and it was only undertaking dated made in the petition 12. Court in CWP No.6835 called the petitioner situated at Panchkula and forcefully written from the petitioner tha said amount than you will be removed from service. So the petitioner written a letter in which she stated that if any recovery of payment due in her side as per law then give me details with clarifications 5. Heard 2025 -2- and directing the respondents to pass a fresh order opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and considering her response In these circumstances, after issuing a show cause notice the impugned order 17.07.2025, has been passed directing the petitioner to deposit ₹2,19,023, which is excess remuneration paid to her Learned State counsel, on instructions, contends that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of undertaking given by vide letter dated 27.03.2025, that she ha of the said amount after informing the details of recovery. Accordingly, the details were furnished vide memo dated 02.04.2025 taking as well as the memo shown by the learned State counsel are retained on the case file as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact however, contended that the petitioner had been it was only under duress that she submitted undertaking dated 27.03.2025. In this regard, she has referred to the averments made in the petition, which are to the following effect: 12. That now after the passing of the order by the Hon’ble Court in CWP No.6835 of 2021 called the petitioner in the office of the respondent Department situated at Panchkula and forcefully written from the petitioner that if you are not agree to deposit the said amount than you will be removed from service. So the petitioner written a letter in which she stated that if any recovery of payment due in her side as per law then give me details with clarifications. Heard. and directing the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and considering her response thereto. In these circumstances, after issuing a show cause notice the impugned order, passed directing the petitioner to deposit an excess remuneration paid to her. l, on instructions, contends that the been passed on the basis of undertaking given by the that she has no objection to recovery the details of recovery. Accordingly, the dated 02.04.2025. Copies of the by the learned State counsel are retained on the case file as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’, respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact. She, had been threatened of removal from that she submitted this letter of . In this regard, she has referred to the averments which are to the following effect: the passing of the order by the Hon’ble of 2021, the respondent department in the office of the respondent Department situated at Panchkula and forcefully a letter has been taken in t if you are not agree to deposit the said amount than you will be removed from service. So the petitioner written a letter in which she stated that if any recovery of payment due in her side as per law then give me details with after affording due . , n l, on instructions, contends that the the no objection to recovery the details of recovery. Accordingly, the opies of the by the learned State counsel are he, of removal from this letter of . In this regard, she has referred to the averments the passing of the order by the Hon’ble , the respondent department in the office of the respondent Department a letter has been taken in t if you are not agree to deposit the said amount than you will be removed from service. So the petitioner written a letter in which she stated that if any recovery of payment due in her side as per law then give me details with Aman Dua 2025.09.04 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-24775-2025 6. It is apparent on record that the impugned order 17.07.2025, has been passed based upon the undertaking given by the petitioner and (Presently working in 05.03.2025 and during hearing she admitted that inadvertently she had taken excess amount of Rs.3,04,023 amount she had paid Rs.85,000 to respondents and remaining balance payment is Rs.2,19,023 the petitioner. It could also not be that the undertaking that she objected dated 02.04.2025 not specifically state her at any stage pay the excess amount of salary wrongly credited to her account, no exception can be taken to the from her on those lines. 7. In view thereof, there is dismissed. 26.08.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 2025 -3- It is apparent on record that the impugned order has been passed based upon the undertaking given by the petitioner and it records as under: Further, a personal hearing was given to the petitioner (Presently working in Government College, Narwana) on 05.03.2025 and during hearing she admitted that inadvertently she had taken excess amount of Rs.3,04,023 amount she had paid Rs.85,000 to respondents and remaining balance payment is Rs.2,19,023 which recove the petitioner. not be established that the petitioner the undertaking, dated 27.03.2025, had that she objected to the details submitted to her by the Department vide memo 02.04.2025. Averments in para 12 of the petition are not specifically state that any objection to the said undertaking was raised by stage. Accordingly, once the petition pay the excess amount of salary wrongly credited to her account, no exception can be taken to the direction issued by the Department to that effect recovery from her on those lines. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? It is apparent on record that the impugned order, dated has been passed based upon the undertaking given by the Further, a personal hearing was given to the petitioner Government College, Narwana) on 05.03.2025 and during hearing she admitted that inadvertently she had taken excess amount of Rs.3,04,023 but against said amount she had paid Rs.85,000 to respondents and remaining which recoverable amount from that the petitioner ever raised any objection been obtained under duress, or to the details submitted to her by the Department vide memo verments in para 12 of the petition are also vague and do any objection to the said undertaking was raised by the petitioner has herself undertaken to pay the excess amount of salary wrongly credited to her account, no exception issued by the Department to that effect recovery no merit in the petition and it stands TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , dated has been passed based upon the undertaking given by the Further, a personal hearing was given to the petitioner Government College, Narwana) on 05.03.2025 and during hearing she admitted that inadvertently but against said amount she had paid Rs.85,000 to respondents and remaining rable amount from any objection or to the details submitted to her by the Department vide memo do any objection to the said undertaking was raised by er has herself undertaken to pay the excess amount of salary wrongly credited to her account, no exception issued by the Department to that effect recovery no merit in the petition and it stands Aman Dua 2025.09.04 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document