1 Civil Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- . 8888 2009 Civil Writ Petition No of : 1.2.2010 Date of Decision Hardial Singh --- Petitioner Versus , The Managing Director Pepsu Road , Transport Corporation Patiala and others --- Respondents : CORAM . HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- : PRESENT . . . , Mr R S Chauhan Advocate . for the petitioner . , Mr Balwinder Singh Advocate . for the respondents --- , . AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J The petitioner has approached this Court under 226/227 Articles of the Constitution of India for issuance of , a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.1.2009, ( -2), , Annexure P passed by the General Manager 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2009 , , Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Kapurthala Depot . 73,337/- Kapurthala whereby a sum of Rs has been ordered to be recovered from the amount of gratuity payable . to him Further prayer has also been made that the respondents be directed to release said amount to the , 18% . petitioner with interest at the rate of per annum , Briefly noticed the facts of the case are that the petitioner had been in the employment of Pepsu Road ( “ ), . Transport Corporation for short PRTC” as Conductor It is claimed that the petitioner served in various depots of the PRTC with utmost satisfaction of his superiors and there was . no complaint whatsoever against him The petitioner retired 31.7.2008 from service on on attaining the age of 10.6.2008, -1. superannuation by order dated Annexure P As , , per further averments in the petition after retirement the , petitioner was granted all benefits payable on retirement , , ., namely commutation of pension leave encashment etc but , , -2, the respondents by order Annexure P deducted a sum 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2009 . 73,337/- of Rs from the amount of gratuity payable to him . and released the balance In the written statement filed on behalf of the , respondents the fact of petitioner having superannuated from 31.7.2008 . service on was admitted Admissibility of aforesaid . pensionary benefits to the petitioner was not disputed As . 73,337/- regards the order deducting the amount of Rs from , the gratuity of the petitioner the respondents made a 14.1.2009 reference to an order dated whereby they had intimated to the petitioner that he had got his pay fixed , wrongly by giving a wrong date inasmuch as the option was 1.1.1986 required to be exercised within four months from . whereas he had given a wrong date in his option form It , was further stated that due to detection of this occurrence . the pay of the petitioner was required to be fixed at Rs 1200/- . 1260/- . . . and not Rs in the pay scales revised w e f 1.1.1986. , , It was thus for this reason the amount as referred to above had to be deducted from the amount of . gratuity payable to the petitioner The respondents robustly 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2009 blamed the petitioner of having got his pay wrongly fixed by deliberately resorting to misrepresentation by giving option for . adopting revised pay scale from an impermissible date On , , these premises the respondents sought to justify the order -2, . Annexure P impugned herein The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned in the petition cannot be legally sustained as the same violates the principles of natural , justice inasmuch as the same has been passed without . affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner In , support of this submission the counsel placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in . Sahib Ram Vs State of , 1995 ( .) (1) 18 Haryana Supp SCC and the judgments of this Court in . Het Ram Vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation , . 6298 2000 and others Civil Writ petition No of decided on 6.9.2007, ( -3) Annexure P and in . . . , Yash Pal Vs M D PRTC . 19.11.2008, ( -4). etc decided on Annexure P On the other , hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner as he 5 Civil Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2009 deliberately and knowing fully well had exercised option on a , , date when he could not have legally done so and thus deduction under reference has been rightly made from the . amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner After hearing counsel for the parties and from a , perusal of the facts pleaded by the parties it is discerned that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the . , petitioner Counsel appearing for the respondents could not , , by reference to any material on record or otherwise show to this Court that the wrong date mentioned in the option form was either deliberate or intentional and that it was a case of . misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner Further the 1986 pay was wrongly fixed in whereas the amount was 2009. sought to be recovered after his superannuation in , Delving on similar situation this Court in Het Ram’s case ( ) supra , : has observed as under “ The aforesaid judgment has been followed by two ' Hon ble Division Benches of this Court in the cases of , Union Territory Chandigarh Administration 6 Civil Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2009 . , 2004 and others vs Sudesh Rathore and others (1) RSJ 523 and Sudarshan Kumar Sood and . , others vs Bhakra Beas Management Board , 2006(1) 308 Chandigarh and others RSJ . In the , present case the admitted case of the respondents is that special increment was given to those . employees who did not participate in the strike Thus it was the action of the respondents which benefited the petitioner and he never extracted this benefit by any misrepresentation or fraudulent . ' , means According to the respondents own case 1978 the benefit was given in the year whereas 5.7.1989. clarificatory instructions were issued on In , view of this stand of the respondents wrong fixation of basic pay of the petitioner cannot be . , attributed to him Therefore recovery made from the gratuity of the petitioner is not permissible and the petitioner is entitled to the refund of .24,779/- . Rs wrongly deducted from his gratuity” 7 Civil Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2009 In view of the above when it is found that there was no misrepresentation of any fact by the petitioner - to the respondent Corporation to derive any benefit which was , not admissible to him and having regard to the observations , made in judicial enunciations noticed above the writ petition , -2, is allowed and consequently the order Annexure P is . quashed The respondents are directed to refund the amount . 73,337/- of Rs to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the same was deducted from . the amount of gratuity of the petitioner till it is paid to him , , The aforesaid amount along with interest shall be paid to . the petitioner within a period of three months from today ( ) AJAY KUMAR MITTAL 1, 2010 February JUDGE * * RKMALIK