CWP No.16289 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16289 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.07.2010 **** Karnail Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Food Corporation of India & 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: Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. HP Verma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners who are employees of the respondent-FCI, were promoted as Dusting Operators on different dates. The petitioners were thereafter granted the selection grade on completion of 12 years of their services w.e.f. 30.06.2000. However, on a representation made by some other employees, the date of grant of selection grade to the petitioners has been postponed to 01.07.2002. As a result thereto, the respondent-Corporation has issued recovery CWP No.16289 of 2009.doc - 2 – orders against the petitioners for the alleged excess salary paid to them. (2). Aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court. (3). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counter- reply/affidavit in which nowhere it is alleged that the petitioners ever misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the selection grade from the original dates. (4). Applying the ratio decidendi of the decision in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 decided by a Full Bench of this Court and a later decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440 virtually approving the principles laid down in Budh Ram’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioners. (5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; recovery order dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure P3) is hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected is ordered to be refunded to the petitioners within CWP No.16289 of 2009.doc - 3 – a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 14.07.2010 vishal shonkar