C.W.P. No. 12816 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12816 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 14, 2009 Girdhari Lal .....PETITIONER Versus Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.D.R. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondent. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has retired from the service of the respondent on 30.9.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure P4) passed by Chief General Manager of the respondent-Corporation, whereby while re-fixing the pay of the petitioner, recovery of excess payment, if any, was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner; as well as the order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P8), whereby an amount of Rs.34,191/- has been deducted from the leave encashment of the petitioner on account of re- fixing his pay vide Annexure P4. In the present case, the petitioner joined his service with the respondent-Corporation as Peon on 20.4.1981. During his service, he C.W.P. No. 12816 of 2008 -2- performed his duties to the best of his ability, as a result of which, he was granted one advance increment on 20.5.1992, one advance increment on 1.4.1994 and two advance increments on 1.10.1995. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Jamadar vide order dated 18.10.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted the benefit of ACP vide order dated 5.3.2007. Thereafter the petitioner retired from the service of the respondent Corporation on 30.9.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it has been averred that the Assured Career Progressions (Revised) Scheme was to be implemented w.e.f. 1.11.2006. It has been further averred that when the petitioner's case was considered for fixation and sent for verification to the Accounts Department, it was noticed that one advance increment granted on 20.5.1992, one advance increment w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and two advance increments w.e.f. 1.10.1995 granted to the petitioner were not adjusted in the future increment as per the clarification dated 1.9.1989 issued by the Government of Punjab. Resultantly, the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed after adjusting the increments wrongly given to him. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid factual position and also did not assail the correctness of the impugned order (Annexure P4). However, he submits that at no point of time the petitioner made any misrepresentation to the respondent or played any fraud on the basis of which any excess amount was paid to him. Learned counsel submitted that if the excess payment was made by the employer, the same is not liable to be recovered from the leave encashment of the petitioner while re-fixing his pay scale after a long time. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon C.W.P. No. 12816 of 2008 -3- the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475. The learned counsel for the respondent could not controvert the aforesaid legal position. It is not the case of the respondent that in the present case the excess amount was paid to the petitioner because of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. From the facts, it appears that the respondent authority after reviewing the case of advance increments and proficiency step-up granted to the petitioner, re-fixed his pay at its own vide impugned order Annexure P4, and on the basis of the said order, the excess amount of salary paid to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.34,191/-, was deducted from the leave encashment of the petitioner. In my opinion, the respondent authority was not legally justified in deducting/withholding the said amount in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.34,191/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, which was illegally deducted from the leave encashment of the petitioner. In case the said amount is not paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the respondent is liable to pay interest @ 12% on the said amount from the date of retirement of the petitioner. May 14, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE