Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Civil Misc. No. 21283 of 2004. Prayer made in this application is for placing on record written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. In view of the averments made in the application, the Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place in the file. Civil Writ Petition No. 7963 of 2004.
(2.) THE petitioner's grouse in the present case is that vide order dated 25.6.2003 (Annexure P/4) his pay was refixed and in pursuance of refixation, a sum of Rs. 1,37,431/ - came to be recoverable from him and the respondents sought to recover the same vide letter dated 2.9.2003 (Annexure P/6). The writ petition was admitted and ordered to be heard along with Civil Writ Petition No. 16546 of 2003 and recovery was stayed in the meanwhile. The said writ petition has been decided on 10.2.2010 and in that case also the petition was allowed to the extent of quashing of recovery. Relevant portion reads as under: - For the reasons afore -stated, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that while re -fixation of the petitioner's pay and withdrawal of the stepping -up benefit, are upheld but the consequential recovery notice is hereby set -aside. It is further directed that if the respondents have already effected any recovery from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. As the petitioner has meanwhile retired from service, his retiral benefits shall also be re -fixed accordingly. Dasti Counsel for the State has contended that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed and was erroneously stepped up and only a correction has been made and order was justified.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner does not press the case on merits and only submits that the petitioner had been appointed way back in 1977 and would have been superannuated in all probabilities by now and at this stage to order recovery of such a huge amount is not justified. It has further been submitted that it was not a case where any misrepresentation and fraud has been alleged on the part of the employee. Therefore, reliance has been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram Vs. State of Haryana(1995) Supp (1) SCC 18.;