IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9228 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 20.08.2009 Sukhdev Chand .... PETITIONER Versus Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 27.12.1971 in the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the respondents'). After putting in more than 31 years of service, he retired from the service of the respondents on 28.2.2003. After his retirement,an amount of Rs. 22,930/- was deducted from the gratuity payable to him. According to the respondents, this deduction was made on account of wrongly granting the senior/junior increment to the petitioner, to which he was not legally entitled. Further, an amount of Rs. 40,684/- was also ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, vide order dated 18.8.2005, on the CWP No. 9228 of 2006 -2- ground that he remained under suspension from 11.3.1976 to 5.10.1976 and had been on leave without pay from 2.1.1977 to 20.7.1977, but both these periods were not deducted from the period of reckonable service of the petitioner, while granting him increments. An amount of Rs. 15,000/-, which was payable to the petitioner as arrears on account of additional increment on completion of 24 years of service under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, was adjusted against the aforesaid recovery and the remaining amount of Rs.25,684/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/-. In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid deductions and recovery from him, being illegal and arbitrary, with a further prayer for directing the respondents to pay the said amount with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was granted the increments as per the Service Rules. Even the respondents were very much aware of the suspension period and the period of leave without pay, but after more than 20 years of granting the said benefit, they have recovered the aforesaid amount on the ground that the same was wrongly granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that for the grant of the said benefit, the petitioner neither made any mis-representation nor played any fraud on the respondents. The respondents, on their own, under the Service Rules, granted the benefit of additional increment to the petitioner. Similarly, the deduction of Rs. 22,930/- has been made from the CWP No. 9228 of 2006 -3- gratuity payable to the petitioner, on the ground that the said amount was paid to him on account of wrongly granting the senior/junior increment, to which he was not legally entitled. Learned counsel submits that for granting the said benefit also, the petitioner did not commit any fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, after his retirement, the said amount cannot be recovered, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (5) SLR 753 and Bihar State Electricity Board and another Vs. Bijay Bahadur and another, 2000 (10) SCC 99 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No. 2799 of 2008, decided on May 22, 2009). Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the aforesaid factual and legal position. He could not controvert the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that at no point of time, the aforesaid benefits were granted on account of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. It is not even the case of the respondents in the written statement. When learned counsel for the respondents could not defend the illegal action of the respondents, he sought time to have instructions from the respondents. Subsequently, he informed that order be passed on merits. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid deduction of Rs. 22,930/- from the gratuity payable to the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 40,684/- (by adjusting Rs. 15,000/- payable as arrears and recovering the remaining amount of Rs.25,684/- in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/-) are totally illegal and CWP No. 9228 of 2006 -4- unjust. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents referred the affidavit given by the petitioner on 7.7.2003, in which it was stated by him that the recovery due from him may be deducted from his gratuity and he will have no objection. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner explained that when the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not being released, the said affidavit was given by him. However, he submits that only lawful recovery could have been deducted from his gratuity. In this case, no misrepresentation or fraud was played by the petitioner in getting the benefits of senior/junior increment and the grant of increment under the ACP Scheme, when the aforesaid two benefits were granted to the petitioner more than 20 years before his retirement. Thus, the said benefits could not have been recovered from him after his retirement, on the ground that the said benefits were wrongly granted to him. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down in Sahib Ram's case (supra), Bihar State Electricity Board's case (supra) and Budh Ram's case (supra). In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 63,614/- (Rs.22,930/- + Rs. 40,684/-) to the petitioner within a period of three months, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The costs are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. August 20, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE