Civil Writ Petition No. 5008 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 5008 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.5.2008 Bani Parshad …Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Thiara, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ be issued for quashing the order passed by the respondents whereby they proceeded to effect recovery from the death-cum-retirement gratuity. The amount of Rs.1,46,829/-, vide order dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure P3), is directed to be recovered. It has been contended by the petitioner that there was no misrepresentation, concealment and fraud on his part. The petitioner was offered promotion, which he had foregone, because as a result of promotion order, the petitioner was to be transferred out. Civil Writ Petition No. 5008 of 2008 2 The case of the respondent is that only those employees were entitled to time bound promotional scale in the 9th and 16th years of service, who could not get opportunity of promotion due to stagnation, therefore, petitioner was wrongly granted benefit of time bound scale. A similar controversy between an employee and Punjab State Electricity Board had been raised in Sardara Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others (C.W.P. No. 3827 of 2006 decided on 24.5.2007), relied upon by the petitioner as Annexure P4, in which the following contentions of learned counsel were noticed:- “Mr. Arvind Kashyap learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pay scales granted on completion of 9/16 years service were released to the petitioner by the Board on their own violation which are now sought to be withdrawn. According to him , the petitioner did not make any misrepresentation nor he played a fraud to obtain those benefits. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668”. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board had also made the following submissions in Sardara Singh's case (supra):- “Mr. K.S.Boparai, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner was offered promotion as Lineman but he had declined his promotion. According to the learned counsel Civil Writ Petition No. 5008 of 2008 3 once the promotion is not availed by an employee then he is not entitled to the higher pay scale in terms of the circular issued by the Board. Therefore, the petitioner has availed the benefit which he was not entitled to”. We have perused the judgment (Annexure P4). In that case, order of recovery was quashed and employee was held to be entitled to refund. We are of the considered opinion that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment of Sardara Singh's case (supra). Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition in the same terms as in Sardara Singh's case (supra). (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge May 26, 2008 “DK”