AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notice dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure P -1) issued by Senior Medical Officer (Respondent No. 4) by which recovery of Rs.92,650/ - from the petitioner has been ordered on the basis of wrong pay fixation. It is the case of the petitioner that he had retired as Senior Assistant from the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab on 31.05.2011. The department had refixed the pay of the petitioner on the ground that earlier the pay was fixed wrongly and proficiency step ups were given from wrong dates, which have been withdrawn and recovery of Rs.92,650/ - from the petitioner had been ordered vide Annexure P -1. He claimed that he had never misrepresented the facts nor played any fraud or used deceptive means to secure any monetary gains, even if the action of stepping up of his pay was erroneous or contrary to rules, no recovery of the resultant emoluments already paid to them can be effected. Hence the present petition.

(2.) UPON notice respondents appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objections that petitioner had not challenged the order of refixation of pay. Impugned order dated 29.04.2011 for recovery of sum of Rs. 92,650/ - has already been effected from the petitioner, therefore, the present petition is belated and liable to be dismissed on the ground of acquiescence and latched. On merits claim of the petitioner has been denied and prayer for dismissal of the petitioner has been made.

(3.) HAVING heard both the learned counsel and going through the case law cited above, I am of the opinion that the amount of money which has been paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Parsad Uniyal's case (supra) which carves out an exception relying upon the earlier judgments of the said Court that such benefits released to the employees during the service cannot be recovered from the retiral benefits. Paras 14 and 17 of the said judgment would be relevant and the same are reproduced herein below: -