IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.6776 of 2008 and C.W.P.No.12975 of 2007 Date of Decision:21.04.2008 Miss Rano .....Petitioner versus The Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate. *** ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6776 of 2008 C.M. is allowed and replication to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. C.W.P.No.12975 of 2007 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2007 vide which recovery of the amount of annual increments have been ordered from the petitioner with effect from 05.02.2001. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the respondents on 29.02.2000. In March, 2001, the petitioner was allowed increments in the same pay scale. However, subsequently, the respondents realised that as the petitioner had not cleared the type test, therefore, he was not entitled to any increment in view of the objection raised by the Auditor, Punjab State Electricity Board. Accordingly, C.M.No.6776 of 2008 and --2-- C.W.P.No.12975 of 2007 recovery from the petitioner of the annual increments paid to him was ordered to be made vide letter No.132 dated 07.02.2007. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar matter in CWP No.11541 of 2006 titled as Vipin Kumar and others versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others decided on 29.03.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court where also the petitioners had not passed the type test and recovery of the annual increments granted to them had been ordered, this Court while relying upon the case of Sahib Ram versus State of Haryana, reported as 1995(1) SCC 668 and Purshotam Lal Dass versus The State of Bihar, reported as 2007(1) RSJ 150 set aside the action of the respondents in withdrawing the increments and ordering the recovery. In the present case, there was no mis-representation or concealment on the part of the petitioner and the annual increment was granted to her by the Department by taking a unilateral decision. No recovery can be effected from the petitioner in view of the law laid down in Sahib Ram's case and Purshotam Lal Dass' case(supra). Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of recovery against the petitioner. The annual increments already recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded back to her. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 21, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE