IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16981 of 2001 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: November 22, 2007 Santokh Chand …Petitioner Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None. JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged order dated 18.8.2000 (P-4) whereby recovery for a sum of Rs. 39311.30 paise has been ordered, and order dated 13.6.2001 (P-6) whereby appeal against the aforementioned order has been dismissed. Further it has been prayed that respondents may be directed to refund the aforementioned amount which has been deducted from the GPF and Gratuity along with interest @ 18% per annum. Still further it has been prayed that respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, amounting to Rs. 2,85,109/-, which were paid on 19.10.2000 instead of 30.11.1999 as also on pension, which was released on 8.10.2000 instead of 1.12.1999. C.W.P. No. 16981 of 2001 (O&M) During the pendency of the writ petition, Civil Misc. No. 822 of 2006 was filed for placing on record orders passed by various Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Hardeep Singh v. PRTC (CWP No. 10192 of 201, decided on 22.9.2003); Hari Ram v. M.D. PRTC (CWP No. 11880 of 2002, decided on 3.5.2004); Mukand Singh v. M.D. PRTC, Patiala (CWP No. 12667 of 2003, decided on 13.5.2004), Singh Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Lal v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 15499 of 2000, decided on 29.8.2005) as well as judgment passed by Letters Patnt Bench in the case of PRTC v. Madan Lal (LPA No. 190 of 2005, decided on 12.12.2005) with a prayer to dispose of the instant petition claiming that the controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid orders. Another Civil Misc. No. 12424 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to place on record judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCT 668, as well as a Division Bench judgment of this Court, of which I am also one of the Member, in the case of Resham Singh v. PRTC and others (CWP No. 20560 of 2006, decided on 10.5.2007) and again it has been prayed that instant petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments. Notice of the aforementioned applications were issued, however, no reply by the respondent has been filed. After perusing the record I find that the issue involved in the instant petition is not res integra. It is trite to notice that no recovery can be fastened on a person when there is no element of 2 C.W.P. No. 16981 of 2001 (O&M) fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sahib Ram (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that no recovery could be effected from an employee in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud on his part. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 18.8.2000 and 13.6.2001 (P-4 & P-6 respectively) are quashed. The petitioner is also held entitled to payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension and pensionary benefits. The pensionary benefits were payable on 1.12.1999, which were actually released on 19.10.2000 and the pension was liable to be released on 1.12.1999 and was actually released on 8.10.2000. Accordingly, interest @ 12% from the date amount was due till the date of payment is liable to paid by the respondents. The amount of recovery and interest on delayed payment of pension and pensionary benefits shall be released to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) November 22, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 3