102 + 219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 23.02.2026 Rajinder Kaur ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Sonu Bhatia. Advocate for Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab.

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (Oral)

In the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby the pay of the petitioner has been refixed and it has been decided to recover an amount of Rs.2,57,342/-

from the pay of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1992, an advertisement was issued for filling up of 2461 posts of School Master/Lecturer. In pursuance of the of the abovesaid advertisement, petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Biology. The petitioner was selected and an appointment letter dated 18.08.1994 (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioner. The abovesaid selection was challenged before this Court in CWP No.5985 of 1994 titled as Yashwinder Singh Rana and others Vs. State of Punjab and others which was decided vide order dated 28.09.1994, whereby services of all the candidates including the petitioner were terminated. Thereafter, fresh advertisement was issued on 28.12.1994. The petitioner again applied in pursuance of the abovesaid advertisement dated 28.12.1994 for consideration for appointment to the post of Lecturer in subject of Biology. The petitioner was duly selected in pursuance of the abovesaid advertisement. It transpires that meanwhile the petitioner was appointed on 89 days adhoc basis. The State of Punjab issued an Ordinance in the year 1999 in regard to recruitment of Teachers. In pursuance of the abovesaid Ordinance, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis vide appointment letter dated 06.12.1999 (Annexure P-3) and she joined the duty on 09.12.1999. The petitioner received a letter dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby it was informed to the petitioner in regard to refixation of pay w.e.f. August, 2022, and recovery of an amount of Rs.2,57,342/- from the pay of the petitioner on the ground that while fixing pay of the petitioner, adhoc service rendered by the petitioner was taken into consideration, which was contrary to the rules. Aggrieved against the abovesaid letter dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute in regard to refixation of pay of the petitioner. He submits that the excess payment received by the petitioner on the basis of wrong fixation of pay by the respondents was not on the basis of any fraud, concealment of facts or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. It is also the case of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was to retire on 28.02.2024 i.e. within one year, on attaining the age of superannuation, as such, no recovery could have been effected from the pay of the petitioner. Reliance is made to the instruction dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-7) issued by the State of Punjab and on the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015(1) SCT 195.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as the fixation of pay in case of the petitioner was contrary to the rule as such, the State has a right to recover the excess amount given to the petitioner. It is also the case of learned State counsel that the State has a right to rectify the mistake and on that ground also, the State can recover the excess payment given to an employee.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book along with records.

6. The only issue involved in the present petition is whether the respondents can recover excess payment given to the peti