IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

253 CWP-33537-2025 Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 Harpal Dass .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. B.S Bajwa, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Bainsa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG Punjab-State.

Ms. Jyotnoor Kaur Sethi, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

****

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 revised pension pay order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby the pension of petitioner was illegally reduced and recovery was effected from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits without issuance of any notice, enquiry or charge-sheet and in complete violation of settled law. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount illegally recovered from the petitioner under the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 along with interest and to restore the original pension of petitioner. Further praying for directing the respondents to grant interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues which was paid after more than 10 months from the date of retirement in pursuance to judgment of Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343

2. Reply by way of affidavit on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 has been filed in the Court today, which is ordered to be taken on record.

Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner retired from service on 03.06.2021 and, thereafter, his pension was duly fixed in accordance with the applicable rules. However, the same came to be revised subsequently vide order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), resulting in an impermissible reduction of pension as well as initiation of recovery from the retiral benefits. It is submitted that such revision, having been effected post-retirement, is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to settled principles of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sampuran Singh vs.

State of Punjab and others, 2025 NCPHHC 7903

4. Learned counsel further submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015 (1) SCT 195, wherein recovery from retired employees, particularly on account of no fault attributable to them, has been held to be impermissible in law. It is contended that the impugned recovery is in the teeth of the aforesaid binding precedent and, therefore, liable to be set aside. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2024 AIR (SC) 3950 and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, to buttress the submission that recovery of alleged excess payments after a long lapse of time, particularly from retiral dues, is legally unsustainable.

5. Learned counsel further submits that no charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement and, therefore, the withholding of his retiral dues is legally untenable and liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that audit objections were raised on 16.07.2021 to the effect that the pay fixation of the petitioner as on 08.01.2006 was not in consonance with the applicable rules and, therefore, warranted re-examination. It is contended that the said objection was neither arbitrary nor mechanical, but was based on a thorough scrutiny of the record and the governing financial norms relating to public expenditure. In compliance with the said audit objection, t