IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

217 CWP-7831-2020 Date of Decision: January 14, 2026 Deepak Talwar .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Raman B. Garg with Mr. Mayank Garg and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ravi Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure P-6) being contrary to Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as well as policy letters dated 06.02.2013 and 23.02.2016 (Annexure P-7 and P-8) respectively being violative of the principle of natural justice with further directions to refund the recovered amount along with interest @ 12% p.a.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner retired as Executive Engineer from the respondent-Board on 30.11.2006 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was initially issued a provisional Pension Payment Order (PPO No. 84) by the respondent-Board for sanction of provisional pension. The said provisional PPO was revised by the respondent-Board vide letter dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the petitioner was sanctioned regular pension by issuance of a fresh Pension Payment Order bearing No. 1098 vide letter dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure P-2), thereby superseding the provisional PPO No. 84. The pension of the petitioner was further revised by the respondent- Board vide letter dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P-3), which was duly communicated to respondent No. 2. However, respondent No. 2 failed to release the pension of the petitioner for the months of January and February, 2020. Upon approaching respondent No. 2 for clarification, the petitioner learnt that his pension had been stopped on the basis of a telephonic message received from the respondent-Board. Thereafter, the petitioner forwarded e- mails dated 11.03.2020 and 13.03.2020 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) to respondent No. 2 seeking immediate release of his monthly pension. Subsequently, on 12.03.2020, the petitioner received a letter (Annexure P-6) issued by the respondent-Board and communicated to respondent No. 2, whereby the pension of the petitioner was ordered to be reduced retrospectively without assigning any justifiable reason. The said communication further directed recovery of an amount of Rs.9,84,220/- from the pension and arrears of pension of the petitioner, to the extent of one-third. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 2-Bank deducted one-third of the amount from the petitioner’s pension. It is contended that prior to reducing the petitioner’s pension or passing the order of recovery, no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and the impugned order (Annexure P-6) was passed without affording him any opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the reduction of pension and recovery of the alleged excess amount is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Hira Lal Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2020(2) SCT 200 and the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-32661-2024, titled as Sajjan Kumar Goyal Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 04.11.2025. He further submits that recovery after almost 14 years is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala and others, 2022(2) SCT 722.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 could not controvert the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the impugne