JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure P-3) vide which an order has been made to recover an amount of Rs.1,36,640/- from the petitioner alleging wrong fixation of his pay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner had retired as a Craft Teacher on 31.01.2019 and the said post falls under Category-III. He submitted that after the retirement, the petitioner was paid only leave encashment and GP fund but pension and gratutity has not been paid till date and there is no reason or justification with the State to not have paid the same to the petitioner. He submitted that as per Annexure P-2 a letter was written by the Executive Officer, Panchyat Samiti, Baghapurana to the petitioner in which it has been so stated that while she was in service and when her pay was fixed with effect from 01.01.2006 then inadvertently the Grade Pay of Rs.3600/- in place of Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- was fixed and in this way she had withdrawn an excess payment with effect from 01.01.2006 till the date of retirement which comes out to be Rs.1,36,640/- and thus excess payment be deposited in the office.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire action of the respondents in seeking recovery from the petitioner and also by not paying the pension and the gratuity to the petitioner till date is absolutely arbitrary, oppressive and not only violative of the Statutory Rules but also it is an infringement of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. He submitted that she retired on 31.01.2019 and thereafter she had to face financial difficulties due to Covid-19 pandemic and no reason has come whatsoever from any corner for withholding the pension and gratuity of the petitioner. He submitted that if the State had fixed the grade pay in the year 2006 wrongly and some excess payment was paid to the petitioner then the same could not have been recovered after her retirement in view of the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 2015 (4) SCC 334 and rather the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. He has therefore prayed that the impugned order/letter by which recovery is sought to be effected from the petitioner be set aside and directions be issued to the State to fix and release the pension and gratuity of the petitioner forthwith along-with the interest.

4. Mr. Arun William, learned AAG, Punjab has filed a short reply by way an affidavit of the Executive Officer-cum-Block Develop.m.ent and Panchayat Officer on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 although the same has been filed by respondent No.3 who is the Executive Officer in the Court and an advance copy was supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. While referring to the reply, he submitted that the grade pay of the petitioner was inadvertently fixed with effect from 01.01.2006 and the petitioner kept on drawing her salary in the wrongly fixed pay scale and therefore she had withdrawn an excess payment of Rs.1,36,640/- for which the State was entitled to recover.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. There are two fold prayers made by the petitioner. Firstly, with regard to the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner from her pension and secondly, the petitioner has n