S.S. NUJAR, J.

(1) BY the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters have been heard finally.

(2) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ petition Nos. 11880, 13056, 11949, 12278, 12272, 12317, 13067 of 2002; 694, 12194, 12195, 12196 of 2003; 3870, 6164 and 6165 of 2004, as identical question of law has been raised in all these writ petitions.

(3) ALL the petitioners were employees of the respondent- Corporation. They have all retired from service. Separate orders have been passed in different writ petitions whereby certain amount is sought to be recovered on the ground that they had been over paid due to wrong fixation of pay. It is not disputed before us that the over payment was made purely due to mistake committed by the respondent-department. The petitioners had not committed any fraud which resulted in the wrong fixation. There is also no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners which resulted in the wrong fixation of the pay. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be wholly unfair and unjust to permit the respondent to effect the recovery from the petitioners on the basis of the alleged over payment. However, it is not necessary for us to decide these matters on first principles as the matters are squarely covered by a number of judgments rendered by different Division benches of this Court which have been attached with the writ petition as Annexures P-8, P-9 and P-10. The main judgment has been rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 10885 of 1997 (Kishori Lal Soni v. State of Punjab and others), decided on December 18, 1997. The petitioner, therein, was seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of gratuity which had been withheld by the respondents. The Division bench after considering the entire matter observed as follows:

"the petitioner is seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to release the amount of gratuity of Rs. 49,500/- that has been withheld. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the said amount has to be recovered from the petitioner on account of the arrears of pay with effect from December 19, 1975 to september 30, 1991 paid in excess than what was due to him. There was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has retired from service, for no fault of his, no part of the gratuity found due to him, could be withheld. The question involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1141 of 1997 (Jagjit Singh v. Punjab State and others) decided on April 11, 1997 and Civil writ Petition No. 16258 of 1996 (S. D. Teneja v. State of Haryana) decided on april 1, 1997. The impugned order directing recovery to be made from the gratuity payable to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay full amount of gratuity due to the petitioner within four weeks from today. In case of delay, payment shall be made with interest at the rate of ten percent per annum upto the date of actual payment. A copy of the order may be given to the learned Advocate General, Punjab, dasti. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Sd- (ARUN B. SAHARYA)Chief Justice december 18, 1997 sd/- SWATANTER KUMAR judge".

Mr. Nehra appearing for the respondents in some of the writ petitions has pointed out that in the Judgments of the Division Benches relied upon by the petitioners only limited relief has been granted. Directions have been issued that no recovery can be effected on the ground of overpayment.

(4) WE are of the considered opinion that the matter is no longer res integra and is covered by the judgments which have been attached with the writ petition. In the present cases, the petitioners have also only challenged the orders whereby certain recoveries were proposed to be made from them. We are also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents against the judgment rendered of CWP No. 948 of 2000 (Raghbir Singh v. Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation) on october 22, 2001, Annexure P-10, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

(5) KEEPING in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the present petitions in terms of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition no. 10885 of 1997 (Kishori Lal Soni v. State of Punjab and others), decided on December 18, 1997 and quash the orders of recoveries in each of the writ petitions. No costs.

(6) A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioners duly authenticated by the Special Secretary (D) of this Court for compliance.