IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 10, 2025 Gaja Nand .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate, (joined through VC) and Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 4.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that after his retirement, certain recoveries have been done from his pensionary benefits which is not admissible hence, an amount of Rs.35,492/-, which has been deducted from his pensionary benefits, is liable to be refunded by the State.

2. Further, prayer of the petitioner is that his pay was not fixed in accordance with law hence, the respondents be directed to fix his pay in accordance with law keeping in view the pay being given to an employee who was junior to the petitioner.

3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer with regard to re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner be treated as not pressed keeping in