C.W.P. No.13796 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13796 of 2008 Date of Decision:29.03.2010 Daljit Kaur wife of Manjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through its Secretary, Local Bodies, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. A.D.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondents Nos.3 and 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petitioner challenges the recovery which is made out of his salary on the ground that the petitioner had been granted the wrong benefit in the year 1995. An excess payment is reported to have been made on a higher scale of what the petitioner was not entitled to. Even without going into the question of whether a higher payment could have been made or not, the issue is not that the petitioner had deliberately made any misrepresentation, or the mistake in payment was so patent that the petitioner knew that she C.W.P. No.13796 of 2008 -2- was receiving an amount, which she was not entitled to, the question of recovery does not arise. 2. There is also gross injustice in the recovery, which is now sought by the fact that the petitioner is reported to have given this benefit some time in the year 1995 when the recovery is sought to be made in the year 2005. The petitioner has had the benefit and a person, who was but the Senior Clerk cannot be visited such a recovery process at this length of time. The recovery sought to be made under the circumstances referred to above shall not be tenable as stated in a Full Bench ruling in Budh Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others 2009(3) SCT 333.. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents refers to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others Vs. Israil Khan and others (2010) 2 SCC 440 . In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with specific rules which provided that the employee should be paid a consolidated salary and the Managing Committee was making a payment by virtue of a resolution which was brazenly in violation of the rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the society itself did not have the funds to make such payment and they were illegally diverting funds meant for disbursal of loans to farmers for the purpose of making excess payment to the employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the situation of a deliberate diversification of funds and a fraudulent exercise of Managing Director through a resolution in contravention of the Rules. This case offers no parallel situation to the facts that C.W.P. No.13796 of 2008 -3- obtains in this case. 4. The impugned deduction is set aside and the payment shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order with interest at 9% per annum. If the amount has been recovered subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest @9% from the date when the recovery was made till the date of payment. 5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 29, 2010 Pankaj*