IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13474 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 Bachittar Singh .....PETITIONER Versus Managing Direcotr, PRTC, Patiala and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.S. Brar, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Initially the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on 10.1.1975 in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (respondent herein). He retired from the services of the respondent-Corporation on 31.5.2004. After his retirement, admittedly an amount of Rs.21,597/- was deducted from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. As per the respondents, the said amount was deducted on account of excess payment made to him on wrong fixation of his pay after providing an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. It is conceded position that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in the year 1980 by the respondents. In view of the above facts, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner did not play any role in fixation of his pay in the year 1980 and his pay was fixed by the respondents at their own without any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He further argued that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. C.W.P. No.13474 of 2008 -2- State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511, in these facts, the aforesaid amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner as he was not at fault nor any fraud was played by him. Counsel for the respondents states that he is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid legal position laid down by the Full Bench as well as factual position in this case. He states that while fixing the pay of the petitioner in the year 1980 the petitioner did not make any misrepresentation or played any fraud. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision, he is not in a position to defend the recovery made by the respondents from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of recovery of the aforesaid amount, on account of wrong fixation of pay, from the amount of gratuity of the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period, then the respondents are liable to pay interest @ 6% on the said amount. September 16, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE