Civil Writ Petition No. 14777 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14777 of 2009 U.D. Moudgil ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate, for Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondent-Corporation has withheld an amount of Rs.72,885/-, which was allegedly paid to one Sh. Shubh Ram an employee of the Corporation wrongly. The Government of Haryana had taken a decision to retrench Group-C and D employees of the Corporation. The petitioner was also retrenched and the activities of the Corporation were closed. Shubh Ram, who was working as Mate, was not allowed to join duties. He, accordingly, approached the Labour Court, where the issue was settled and he was taken back in service. Civil Writ Petition No. 14777 of 2009 -2- Inadvertently, however, he was given regular pay scale although he was work charge employee. He as such was not entitled to regular pay scale. Due to audit objection, this came to the notice of the Corporation and the Corporation initiated the proceedings against Subh Ram for recovery of the excess payment. Subh Ram filed a civil suit against the Corporation, which was partly allowed giving declaration to the effect that he was not entitled to fixation of his pay and the Corporation was at liberty to effect recovery from the petitioner. Subh Ram moved to the Sessions Court, where he failed to get any relief and the appeal was rejected on 31.7.2002. Thereafter, he filed Regular Second Appeal before this Court, which is pending. This Court has granted stay in favour of Subh Ram. At the time of closure, the Corporation had withheld an amount of Rs.72,585/- out of the retiral benefits of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. There apparently is no serious dispute on the facts. The respondent-Corporation has justified withholding of the said amount on the ground that the recovery from Subh Ram had been stayed and so the amount may have to be recovered from the petitioner. It is stated that the withheld amount belonging to the petitioner, can be released only once the Regular Second Appeal is decided. I find the action of the respondents to be wholly unjustified. The payment, if any, was made to Subh Ram. It may have been wrongly made for which the Corporation ultimately may be held entitled to recover this amount. Certainly, the petitioner, who had allowed the regular pay scale is not attributed with any motive or Civil Writ Petition No. 14777 of 2009 -3- intentional act for which he can be held responsible for reimbursing the payment even if made in excess to said Subh Ram. Withholding the substantial amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner by the Corporation, is fully illegal. As per the law laid down by Budh Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2009 (3) SCT 333, the payments which are made without any misrepresentation or fraud, may not even be recoverable against Subh Ram. Hence, this amount is withheld from retiral benefits of the petitioner without any authority. There is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Certainly withholding of this amount does not appear justified. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Direction is issued to the respondents to release the withheld amount to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the amount is not released within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be entitled to recover the same with interest @ 6% per annum from the date it is withheld to the date of payment. February 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE