C.W.P. No. 6513 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6513 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 19, 2011 Krishna Devi d/o Chiman Lal .... PETITIONER Vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner restricts the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition only with regard to the recovery which has been ordered against her by the respondent-Board on the ground that the amount, which was released to the petitioner, was neither on her representation nor misrepresentation or by any wrong information supplied by the petitioner. The initial grant of proficiency step up after completion of 8 years of service as also the grant of higher pay scale on completion of 9 years of service was granted to her by the Board of its own, which subsequently has now C.W.P. No. 6513 of 2010 2 been found to be not in accordance with the instructions as per the respondents and, therefore, the recovery has been ordered. Although the order calculating the amount has not been conveyed to the petitioner but she has come to know that the said amount is ` 2,92,805/- and recovery @ `6,000/- per month from her salary has been initiated. He states that in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009) reported as 2009 (3) PLR 511, the recovery against the petitioner could not be effected by the respondents in view of the fact that there was no fraud or misrepresentation made by the petitioner nor was she granted the benefit on her claim. Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the ratio of the judgment which has been cited by the counsel for the petitioner and relied upon for putting forth his claim with regard to the non-recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner restricting his claim only to the recovery to be effected from the petitioner without challenging the validity of the orders, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to make further recovery from the petitioner in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra). The amount already recovered may be refunded to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) April 19, 2011 JUDGE pj