CWP No.6011 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6011 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Salag Ram Kansal . . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a retired Pharmacist of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Punjab. He impugns the orders dated 13.06.2008 and 16.09.2008 (Annexure P1 & P2), whereby, the benefits of Proficiency Step-up and Rural Area Allowance, earlier granted to him, have been withdrawn and consequential recovery is sought to be effected. (2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter- affidavit. CWP No.6011 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). It is urged by the learned State Counsel that the petitioner himself consented in writing for recovery of the Rural Area Allowance from his GPF and that now he cannot turn around and challenge the recovery notice. (4). I, however, do not find much substance in the contention for the reason that the undertaking was apparently given under compelling circumstances to get expedited the release of his (petitioner’s) retiral benefits. The undertaking given by the petitioner cannot be construed as his admission that the Rural Area Allowance was erroneously granted to him. (5). Be that as it may, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner ever misled the authorities or played fraud or deceived them to gain the said monetary benefit to which he did not deserve. (6). In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 , the orders qua recovery are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this CWP No.6011 of 2009.doc - 3 – order. However, the order qua re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay is upheld. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar