CWP No.6151 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6151 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2010 **** Kuldeep Kumar and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. (2). The petitioners who are working as Canal Patwaris/Junior Assistant/Clerk with the respondent- Irrigation Department seek quashing of the orders dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure P1); 02.03.2006 (Annexure P2); 03.03.2006 (Annexure P3); 22.08.2008 (Annexure P4); 25.10.2005 (Annexure P5); 10.07.2008 (Annexure P6); and 10.12.2008 (Annexure P8), whereby, the benefits of selection-grade/senior- scale/proficiency Step-up have been withdrawn and CWP No.6151 of 2010.doc - 2 – consequential recovery notices have been issued to them. (3). The main grievance of the petitioners is that no recovery can be effected as they never mis-represented the facts nor misled the authorities while seeking one or the other service benefits. (4). The respondents have not filed any counter- reply/affidavit and are, thus, unable to admit or deny as to whether or not the petitioner misled the authorities while seeking the aforesaid benefit(s). (5). At the same time and in the absence of any material to the contrary, the petitioners are justified in relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others reported as 2009 (3) PLR 511 wherein it is ruled that an employee who was not guilty of misrepresentation, fraud or deception at the time of grant of some service benefit under the mistake of the functionary of the State Government, deserves to be dealt with independently and cannot be called upon to refund to the Government the undeserved payment that he/she has already received. (6). That being so, the recovery notice cannot sustain. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the recovery notices issued against the petitioners are hereby CWP No.6151 of 2010.doc - 3 – quashed. The recovery, if any, already made shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, however, with a clarification that if, on verification of the records, it is found that the petitioners had actually misrepresented the facts and/or had obtained the monetary benefits through fraud or deception, the respondents shall be at liberty to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 06.04.2010 vishal shonkar