CWP No.17310 of 1996.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17310 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.11.2010 **** Manmohan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. HK Brinda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.1994 (Annexure P3) vide which his pay has been refixed, as well as the order dated 3/6.09.1996 (Annexure P8) to the extent of effecting the consequential recovery from his retiral benefits/dues. (2). The petitioner joined the respondent-Institute as a Teacher on 12th April, 1963 followed by his promotion firstly as Lecturer on 1st December, 1967 and thereafter as Principal w.e.f. 31.10.1975. The petitioner served the Institute as Principal till CWP No.17310 of 1996.doc - 2 – he retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 29th March, 1994. The petitioner came across the impugned order dated 28th July, 1994 (Annexure P3) indicating that his pay was wrongly re-fixed which further led to the ex parte recovery effected vide order dated 06.09.1996 from the Gratuity and the retiral dues of the petitioner. (3). From the reply/affidavit it appears that according to the respondents the appointment of the petitioner as Principal was a fresh appointment and not by way of promotion and as such he was not entitled to the promotional increment(s). (4). During the course of hearing, it is the conceded position that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded before ordering the impugned recovery. The impugned orders, having far- reaching civil consequences including the reduction of the petitioner’s pension, could not have been passed without observing the principles of natural justice. (5). That apart, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner misrepresented the facts; played CWP No.17310 of 1996.doc - 3 – any fraud or deceived the authority so as to secure any undeserving monetary benefit(s). For the reasons assigned 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, no recovery, in any case, can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner. (6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned action of ordering recovery from the petitioner’s Gratuity is hereby set aside with a direction to the respondents to refund the withheld/recovered amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from September, 1996 till the actual payment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE