CWP No.16503 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16503 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.11.2010 **** Leela Devi . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. PS Mattewal, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk in the respondent-Board and he seeks quashing of the impugned action whereby recovery is sought to be effected on account of the alleged erroneous grant of time bound promotional scales to the petitioner. (2). The respondents have filed their counter- reply/affidavit defending the impugned action. CWP No.16503 of 2007.doc - 2 – (3). It is, however, no-where alleged by the respondents in their reply that the petitioner misrepresented the facts; played any fraud or deceived the authority in order to secure any undeserving monetary benefits. (4). That being the state of affairs, no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440. (5). The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part; the impugned action is hereby quashed. The withheld/recovered amount, if any, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE