IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7822 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.01.2011 K.L. Bansal ...Petitioner Versus Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has retired as Additional General Manager from Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited on 31.01.2009. In view of the change in policy regarding Leave Travel Concessions (LTC), the petitioner was allowed one month's salary amounting to Rs. 43,774/- in lieu of LTC. The petitioner has now been asked to refund this amount on the ground that he would not be entitled to the same as the policy was introduced after his retirement and would not apply to his claim. No doubt at the time of retirement of the petitioner, he was entitled to LTC for the block of 4 years started from 2008-11. He had applied for grant of LTC on 16.12.2008. Soon after his retirement, the Haryana Government formulated the policy of LTC regarding the same block of 4 years from 2008-11 whereby one month's salary was to be paid in lieu of LTC allowance. The petitioner withdrew his earlier request and made a prayer for grant of one month salary in lieu of LTC. Concededly, the petitioner was entitled to LTC which he has Civil Writ Petition No. 7822 of 2010 -2- available and asked for allowance in lieu of changed policy. The question is only on what rate he is to be paid this concession. As per the earlier policy, the petitioner was entitled to actual expenditure incurred for journey undertaken. As per the changed policy, the petitioner was entitled to one month salary in lieu of LTC allowance. This amount was paid to the petitioner after seeking clarification from Registrar Cooperative Societies. Subsequently, however, Chief Secretary has issued certain clarification, whereby it is viewed that the petitioner was not entitled to grant one month's salary in lieu of LTC as the policy came into being after his retirement. The policy was introduced w.e.f. 05.02.2009 whereas the petitioner was retired on 31.01.2009. Even if that be so, apparently the block of 4 years continues to be the same i.e. 2008-11 for which the petitioner was entitled to LTC. It is only question of at what rate he was paid this concession. Once the policy is applied to a block of 4 years starts from 2008, it may be applicable to those who were in service in 2008 and subsequent years in the block. Once the petitioner has been given this payment, it would not be fair to ask him to return the refund. To this position, the ratio of law laid down in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others 2009 (3) SCT 333, may also apply as the petitioner had not misrepresented in any manner. The petitioner was paid this amount after seeking clarification and obviously this would not show any misleading and misrepresentation on his part. Civil Writ Petition No. 7822 of 2010 -3- The writ petition is allowed. The demand raised by the respondents through Annexure P-6 to refund this amount is set aside. January 13, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE