CWP No.6086 of 1996.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6086 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.01.2011 **** Lok Nath Miglani . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & 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. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined as a Laboratory Incharge on 18/19.10.1976 and was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Chemist on 10.08.1989 from where he retired w.e.f. 31.12.1993 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner now seeks quashing of the orders dated 01.08.1994 & 12.03.1996 (Annexures P8 & P11, respectively) vide which an amount of Rs.5171.25P has been ordered to be recovered from his Gratuity on the ground that he has got encashed 196 ½ days’ Earned Leave as against the Earned Leaves of 173 days CWP No.6086 of 1996.doc - 2 – admissible to him. It is alleged that the employees of the respondent-Sugarfed were allowed to encash unavailed leave(s) at the end of the crushing seasons other than what they are entitled to as per Rules and as a result thereto recovery of Rs.5171.25P on account of the excess payment of leave encashment of 22 ½ days need to be effected. (2). The respondents in their counter-reply/affidavit have further explained that the benefit of encashing the unavailed leave during the crushing season is admissible to those employees only whose service conditions are governed under the Sugar Mill Rules whereas the petitioner was governed under the Common Cadre Rules. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery of the excess leave encashment from the Gratuity of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary. I say so for the reason that it was upon the respondents to see as to under which set of Rules the service conditions of the petitioner are governed and as to what benefit he was entitled to. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner ever misled the facts or played any fraud or deceived the authorities to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). CWP No.6086 of 1996.doc - 3 – (4). 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 allowed to be effected from the petitioner. (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the recovery orders dated 01.08.1994 & 12.03.1996 (Annexures P8 & P11, respectively) are quashed and the amount deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner is ordered to be refunded to him along with interest @ 7% per annum. (6). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 06.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge