CWP No. 14824 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14824 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.2.2010 Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order Annexure P-5 vide which his salary was revised and recovery of Rs.53,709/- had been ordered by making an entry to the effect at Page 35 of Part 4 of his Service Book. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as Draftsman GNDTP, Bathinda and was promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman (in short “DHD”) vide office order dated 1.7.2003 (Annexure P-1) and posted in Distribution Division, Sangrur against a vacant post. Vide office order dated 10.11.2008, while partially amending office order dated 5.9.2008, the petitioner was posted as Circle Head Draftsman (in brief “CHD”) in the CWP No. 14824 of 2009 -2- office of the Superintending Engineer under the Chief Engineer Operations (West), Bathinda. On 10.6.2009, the petitioner was transferred from the office of the Superintending Engineer, Distribution Circle, Bathinda to the office of the Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division, Sangrur and as per the Last Pay Certificate (in short, “LPC”) he was being paid Rs.38577/- per month. Thereafter, the entries of pay fixation were revised and while issuing the revised LPC, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.13,300/- to Rs.12,900/- along with the admissible allowances, meaning thereby, the salary of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.38,577/- to Rs.37,450/- p.m. and a recovery of Rs.53,709/- was ordered from his salary. According to the petitioner, the said recovery was ordered on account of withdrawal of the additional increment, which was granted to him on completion of 23 years service and benefit thereof continued from July, 2003 to September, 2009. It is further pleaded that the petitioner shall retire from the service of respondent No.1 on 31.10.2010 and the respondents have started recovery at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from the pay of the petitioner for the month of September, 2009 payable on 1.10.2009. Hence, the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents who filed a joint written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. It was pleaded that on completing 23 years of service, the benefit of promotional increment was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.7.1998 vide office order dated 16.5.2001 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the benefit given on 23 years service would be absorbed on next regular promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Head CWP No. 14824 of 2009 -3- Draftsman (DHD) vide office order dated 1.7.2003 and as the benefit given on 23 years service was to be adjusted on getting next higher promotion as DHD on 1.7.2003 but due to clerical mistake the same could not be adjusted and he was wrongly given next higher increment. It was further pleaded that during audit of the service record, the said mistake came into notice and the salary of the petitioner was refixed and revised last pay certificate (Annexure P-5) was issued and it was ordered that recovery of Rs.53,709/- be made. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the petition with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only challenged the recovery of Rs.53,709/- which was sought to be made from the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the benefit of additional increment had been granted on 23 years of service in view of the circular letter of respondent No.1, whereby every employee was entitled to an additional increment on completion of 23 years of service. He argued that the petitioner had neither misrepresented nor had played any fraud in getting his salary fixed on promotion as DHD and by interpreting the circular letter of respondent No.1, the respondents had by themselves extended the benefit to the petitioner and, therefore, in view of Full Bench judgment in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 1617, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. CWP No. 14824 of 2009 -4- Learned counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate that there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner on the basis of which the benefit of increment on promotion as DHD was given to him and that in the light of Full Bench decision in Budh Ram's case (supra), the recovery is justified. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the order whereby recovery of Rs.53,709/- has been ordered to be made from the petitioner is set aside. February 11, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE