CWP No.5198 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5198 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Urmil Sharma . . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . 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. IPS Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as a Junior Scale Stenographer in the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab. She is aggrieved at the orders dated 12.04.2007, 13.08.2008 and 20.02.2009 (Annexure P2, P5 and P7, respectively), whereby, her pay has been reduced/refixed on withdrawal of the benefit of Proficiency Step-up as well as ACP and consequential recovery is sought to be effected from her pay. (2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. CWP No.5198 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). It is the conceded position that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. Suffice it to observe that the impugned orders have serious civil consequences as not only the recovery sought to be effected, the petitioner’s monthly emoluments have also been adversely affected. The impugned action could not be taken against the petitioner without observing the principles of natural justice. (4). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned 12.04.2007, 13.08.2008 and 20.02.2009 (Annexure P2, P5 and P7, respectively), are hereby quashed with the following directions:- i. the respondents shall issue show cause notice, if so required, to the petitioner disclosing the cause of withdrawal of the benefit earlier granted to her; ii. the petitioner shall be granted four weeks’ time to submit her reply; iii. the competent authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with the Government Policy/rules and the decisions of this Court; iv. The decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of submission of the reply to the show cause notice, if issued. CWP No.5198 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). Needless to say that if the petitioner’s plea is accepted by the competent authority in that event her pay shall be suitably refixed and the consequential arrears shall also be paid to her within a period of four months from the date of such determination. (6). However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner never misrepresented the facts and it is not the case of the respondents that she ever played any fraud or deceived them to gain the said monetary benefit, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from her, as ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 . (7). The orders qua recovery are accordingly quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected from her, shall be refunded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall continue to draw her pay as per the refixed/reduced rates subject to the final decision that the competent authority shall take pursuant to fresh show cause notice, if issued to her. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 CWP No.5198 of 2009.doc - 4 – vishal shonkar