CWP No.1847 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1847 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.09.2010 **** Suresh Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & 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 Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner impugns the order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P4) whereby the benefit of time-bound pay-scale granted to him on completion of 9 years of service has been withdrawn and consequential recovery of `354727/- is sought to be effected. (2). One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since the impugned order(s) visits him with civil consequences, it could not be passed without hearing him and that in no circumstances recovery can be allowed to be effected from him. CWP No.1847 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). The pleadings have been perused and counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. (4). It is the conceded position that before passing the impugned order(s) no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the impugned order(s) visit the petitioner with civil consequences and the same could not have been passed without observing the principles of natural justice. (5). The question that still arises for consideration is that even if the petitioner was granted the time- bound pay-scale erroneously, can the respondents be permitted to effect recovery of the alleged excess payment from the petitioner when it is not their case that the petitioner misled/mis- represented or deceived the authorities? (6). Somewhat similar controversy came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 which held that where an employee has not indulged in any fraud, deception or misrepresentation of facts before the authorities, no recovery of the monetary benefits drawn by such employee due to an erroneous interpretation and/or inadvertent error of the CWP No.1847 of 2010.doc - 3 – competent authority, can be allowed to be effected. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440. (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 22.12.2009 and 14.01.2010 (Annexure P4 & P5, respectively) effecting recovery of `3,54,727/- from the petitioner are hereby quashed. The amount if already recovered is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, if so required, for re-fixation of his pay and if it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to the time-bound pay scale, in that event also the respondents shall not be entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioner. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 28.09.2010 vishal shonkar