IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19687 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 04.11.2009 Munshi Ram ... PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner is working as LDC in the office of Additional Superintending Engineer (Civil) Shahpur Kandi Power House, PSEB Division Hajipur, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. In the instant petition, he is challenging the order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-3), whereby an amount of Rs. 60,992/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner on two grounds, firstly that he was granted annual increment in spite of not passing the type test; and secondly that he was wrongly granted 9 years time bound promotional scale by treating the post of LDC as induction post, in place of post of Sewadar. On these two counts, the aforesaid excess payment is alleged to have been made to the petitioner, CWP No. 19687 of 2008 -2- which has been ordered to be recovered from him. During the course of hearing, counsel for the respondents states that the respondent Board has extended the time for passing the type test, therefore, the amount of annual increment which was granted to the petitioner, in spite of not clearing the type test, is not to be recovered from him. Regarding the recovery on account of grant of time bound promotional scale, it has been stated that when the said benefit was given to the petitioner, no role was played by him nor he made any mis- representation for getting the said benefit. In view of this, counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1994 (5) SLR 753 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333, no recovery could have been effected from the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the aforesaid legal and factual position. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. If on the basis of the order dated 10.10.2007, any amount has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to refund the same to the petitioner. November 04, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE