The Court allowed the petition in limited terms, holding that the respondents have no right to recover money from the petitioner. The matter was covered by the precedent Budh Ram's case where recovery was barred due to lack of fraud or misrepresentation.
The respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 14526 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 10, 2009
SUDESH KUMARI
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for quashing order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), by virtue of which the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,21,110/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner confines the claim in challenge to recovery only. Re-fixation of pay is accepted.
A perusal of order (Annexure P-1) indicates that after re-
Civil Writ Petition No. 14526 of 2009
2
fixation of pay of the petitioner, the amount to be recovered from the petitioner has been calculated.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the pay had initially been fixed by the respondents, the petitioner did not play any fraud and had not misrepresented facts. In such circumstances, the issue is covered by Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that, in deed, there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented facts.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra).
The petition is, accordingly, allowed in limited terms viz. the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
December 10, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents can effect recovery from the petitioner for the alleged overpayment.
Whether the petitioner's claim is covered by the Full Bench judgment in CWP 2799 of 2008.
Whether the order directing recovery is valid in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶18
CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudes Kumari
State of Punjab & Ors.
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
