CWP No.10827 of 1989 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10827 of 1989 Date of decision : 12.3.2010 Promilla Devi ...Petitioner Versus Haryana State Federation of Coop. Consumers and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL **** Present: Mr. R S Longia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, who is a widow, has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing letter dated 13/17.3.1989 (Annexure P-7) whereby an amount of Rs.1766.33 has been sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner being outstanding against her late husband Sh. Phool Chand, Ex-salesman, on account of some shortages. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid recovery inter alia on the ground that no notice was issued to her before issuing Annexure P-7 by the respondents. Learned counsel further states that this Court, while admitting the writ petition on 21.12.1989, had stayed the recovery of CWP No.10827 of 1989 --2-- the amount from the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the recovery which was sought to be effected from the petitioner, was on account of shortage occurred during the service of her late husband and in the meantime, the petitioner has also expired. He has prayed that under the circumstances, keeping in view the quantum of recovery and the fact that even the petitioner has expired, the interim order be made absolute. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since a petty sum of Rs.1766.33 is sought to be recovered from the petitioner, this Court feels that the interim order dated 21.12.1989 deserves to be made absolute, especially when the petitioner has also died. Therefore, showing compassion, the interim order passed by this Court on 21.12.1989 is made absolute in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is ordered that no recovery be effected from the legal heirs of the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Disposed of, accordingly. March 12, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) atulsethi JUDGE