CWP No.21105 of 2008.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.21105 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.08.2010 **** Santosh Gupta . . . . 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. Sourav Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. KP Singh, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined the respondent-Board initially as an Upper Division Clerk on 03.03.1975 and has since retired from the post of Divisional Superintendent w.e.f. 31.03.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. He is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure P3) ordering recovery of Rs.44693/- from the payments of his leave encashment for the alleged erroneous grant of time bound promotional scale to him. (2). The only plea taken by the respondents is that vide letter dated 27.01.1999 (Annexure R1), the petitioner was debarred from promotion to the post CWP No.21105 of 2008.doc - 2 - of Divisional Superintendent as she had opted to forego the promotion and therefore, she was not entitled to continue to draw the time bound promotional scale granted on completion of her 9/16 year’s service. In other words, the respondents have come up with a plea that the petitioner continued to draw the promotional pay scale due to inadvertent mistake. (3). Suffice it to say that the respondents have nowhere alleged that the petitioner ever misrepresented the facts, played any fraud or deceived the authorities in order to secure any undeserving monetary benefits. (4). That being the state of affairs, no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440. (5). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part; the impugned order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure P3) vide which recovery of Rs.44693/- has been ordered to be effected from the leave encashment of the petitioner is hereby quashed. It is directed the withheld/recovered amount shall be refunded to the CWP No.21105 of 2008.doc - 3 - petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 30.08.2010 vishal shonkar