CWP(T) No. 7212/2008 31.08.2010 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for the respondents The facts in this case are not disputed. In terms of order dated 30.3.1989 petitioners were entitled to project allowance @10% of pay subject to a maximum of Rs.100/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.1989. 2. This was stopped in terms of order dated 24.12.1999 (Annexure A- 2) which reads as under:- “OFFICE ORDER H.P.S.E.B. has decided that project allowance will not be paid to the staff posted in Project Construction Circle Dharamshala after completion/ commissioning of Gaj and Banner HEP. Sd/- Chief Engineer (P&M) HPSEB, Shimla-4 No.HPSEB(Sectt) 413-18/99-Project Allow. 990052-63 Dated 24.12.1999. Copy forwarded to the following: 1. The Chief Engineer (Projects HPSEB, Shimla w.r.to his letter No.HPSEB : CEP-37-I-PCC/Dharamshala/98-16828-29 dated 17.2.99. Further action may be taken accordingly. 2. The Secretary HPSEB, Shimla-4 w.r. to the proposal against agenda item no. 251.04 regarding audit para no.2. 3. The Addl. Secretary-cum-PS/Sr. PS/PS to the Chairman/ Members for kind information of Chairman/ Members. 4. The Chief Accounts Officer, HPSEB, Shimla-4. 5. The Dy. Chief Auditor alongwith photocopy of PN.5 for information. Sd/- Chief Engineer (P&M) HPSEB, Shimla-4 HPSEB 12845-46 Dated 1.1.2000. No.CE(D)-37-I-Dec/D/Shala Copy to the Superintending Engineer, Drg.C Const. Circle, HPSEB, Dharamshala for information & n/a. He is advised to effect the recovery of Project allowance from the individual concerned. Copy to the U/Secy. Of this office for necessary action. Sd/- 31/12. C. E. (D) HPSEB, Shimla-4” 3. It is this order which has been impugned in this petition. 4. Now the first part of the impugned order is unambiguous and clear. The benefit has not been withdrawn with retrospective date. It has to be read only perspectively. Hence the endorsement made by an authority other than the Chief Engineer (P&M) for recovering the amount already paid to the petitioners in terms of office order dated 30.3.1989 (Annexure A-1) is uncalled for, more so for the reason that prior to making such endorsement no opportunity of hearing/ representation was ever afforded to the petitioners. It entails civil consequences. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioners of the amount paid in terms of Annexure A-1. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed off. August 31, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.