IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2644 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 21, 2009 Shanu Ram .....PETITIONER Versus The Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, Patiala and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This petition was admitted on May 1, 2007 and today C.M. No.5542 of 2008 has been listed for hearing. However, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the main case has been taken up for hearing. I have heard the counsel for the parties on merits. The petitioner retired from the services of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala on 31.1.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, vide order dated 1.9.2005 (Annexure P5), respondent No.2 ordered for recovery of Rs.24,887/- from his retiral benefits on the ground that in the year 1994 he was wrongly given annual increment on 1.8.1994, which in fact should have been given to him on 1.5.1995. In the impugned order, it has been stated that on promotion as Service Station Incharge from Head Electrician on 27.4.1994, the petitioner C.W.P. No. 2644 of 2006 (O&M) -2- was entitled for one increment which was given to him w.e.f. 3.5.1994 (date of his joining duty on the promotional post). Immediately, three months; thereafter the petitioner was granted next annual increment on 1.8.1994, which should have actually been granted on 1.5.1995. Vide impugned order, by making the correction and re-fixing the pay of the petitioner, the recovery of the aforesaid amount was ordered. Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.2799 of 2008) decided on 22.5.2005 and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1994(5) SLR 753, contends that the petitioner was neither directly nor indirectly responsible for giving him the said benefit of one increment, and at no point of time he had made any misrepresentation for granting the said benefit. Rather, the respondents on their own have granted the said benefit. Therefore, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the aforesaid factual position and states that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram's case ( supra). In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.9.2005 (Annexure P5) is set aside, and the respondents are directed to re-pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. October 21, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE