HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14508 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.08.2011 **** Sheela Kumari . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & 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. AK Goel, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. On the asking, Mr. BS Chahal, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondent(s) to file their reply(ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage. (2). The petitioner, who retired as Junior Assistant from the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab, seeks quashing of the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P4) ordering recovery of Rs.61807/- from her Gratuity on account of withdrawal of the benefit of Proficiency step- up. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has never misled the authorities or played any CWP NO.14508 of 2011.doc - 2 – fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). (4). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 as well as the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. (5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the recovery order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P4) is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount if any already recovered from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Since the respondents have not filed any counter- reply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 10.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge CWP NO.14508 of 2011.doc - 3 –