Civil Writ Petition No.4712 of 2006 -1- ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4712 of 2006 Date of Decision : 29.10.2010 Hakam Singh, Retd. Constable No.2861/Patiala ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents-State. **** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Punjab Police on 02.06.1990 after his discharge from the Army. The petitioner before his employment in the Punjab Police, was in the Military Service from 09.10.1965 to 31.10.1989. The State of Punjab granted various benefits such as seniority, pension to those Army personnel who had defended the Nation during the emergency. Those who stood on the borders to save the mother land from external aggression were rewarded the benefits as per Rules 7.20 of Punjab C.S.R. Vol. II. It is not disputed that the petitioner was given benefit of Military service. However, a show cause notice (Annexure P-8) was issued to the petitioner on 22.07.2004. In the show cause notice, it was specifically stated that only those employees who had been recruited in the Military service during the emergency from 1962 to 1968 are entitled to Military service benefits extended by the State. The petitioner had joined the Military service in October 1965, therefore, he was given only benefit of Civil Writ Petition No.4712 of 2006 -2- ... Military service from 1965 to 1968. However, earlier to the issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner was granted benefit of Military service for entire length of service, therefore, to set the record right, order (Annexure P-11) was passed to effect recovery of excess amount paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333, to contend that for grant of earlier service benefit from 09.10.1965 to 31.10.1989, there was no misrepresentation or fraud or deception on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the amount already paid cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is unable to distinguish the ratio of law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra). Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly accepted. The impugned order is upheld, however, recovery ordered from the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 is quashed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge 29.10.2010 neetu