HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18055 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.01.2011 **** Tirlok Chand . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. AK Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. NS Boparai, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.18055 of 2006 & CWP No.10820 of 2007 as issue involved in both the cases is common in nature. Brief facts are extracted from CWP No.18055 of 2006 for the sake of brevity. (2). The petitioner, who at the time of filing of the writ petition was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Office of Accounts and Finance Manager of respondent No.3, seeks quashing of the order dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure P10) vide which the benefit of higher pay scales granted to him on completion of 9/16 years of service has been withdrawn and the consequential recovery is sought to be effected. He also seeks quashing CWP No.18055 of 2006.doc - 2 – of the subsequent orders/clarifications issued by the respondents in relation thereto. (3). This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 16.11.2006 stayed the operation of the recovery order (Annexure P10). The writ petition was later on admitted and the stay was ordered to continue. (4). The petitioner has now filed an application confining his claim qua recovery only as against the other reliefs claimed by him. (5). The respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit wherein it is nowhere averred that the petitioner misled the facts or played any fraud or deceived the authorities to secure any undeserving monetary benefit(s). (6). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 as well as the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. (7). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the petitioners is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if already, recovered CWP No.18055 of 2006.doc - 3 – from the petitioner(s) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge