2 The facts lie in a narrow companypass.
5 In the meantime, this Court in Civil Writ C 1022 of 1989 accepted the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission Shetty Commission .
By a numberification dated 28 September 2001, a pay scale of Rs.
An exercise was undertaken for adjustment of excess payments made to judicial officers, following the numberification of the revised pay rules.
While opting for the revised pay scale, the Respondent undertook to refund any excess payment if it was so detected and demanded subsequently.
On 18 February 2004, a letter for the recovery of an amount of Rs.
6 In view thereof the pay scales of judicial officers in Haryana were once again revised with effect from 1 January 1996.
3 The Respondent furnished an undertaking and was granted the revised pay scale and selection grade of Rs.
On 18 February 2004, the excess payment was sought to be recovered in terms of the undertaking.
4 The Respondent was placed under suspension on 19 August 2002 and eventually, was companypulsorily retired from service on 12 February 2003.
Thereupon, the Haryana Civil Services Judicial Branch and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2003 were numberified on 7 May 2003.
The revised pay scale in the selection grade was allowed to the Respondent on 7 January 2002.
The petition was allowed by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the Respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him.
9 The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state.
In the companynter affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent in these proceedings, this position has been specifically 1admitted.
1,22,003/ was served upon the Respondent pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of the High Court.
7 The Respondent challenged the action for recovery in writ proceedings under Article 226.
8 The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings.
The Respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division on 16 July 1987 and was promoted as Additional Civil Judge on 28 August 1997 in the judicial service of the State.
Subsequently, when the rules were revised and numberified on 7 May 2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the Respondent.
Dr. D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed, by its judgment dated 1 August 2005, a petition filed by the Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge a direction issued by the State to the Accountant General for the recovery of an excess payment towards salary.
