IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5757 of 1987 Date of decision: 4th November, 2008 Joginder Lal and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Jagdip Bains, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent-Bank. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition was filed by 24 employees of Chandigarh Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Bank’). They were working as Peons, Clerks, Accountants and Field Officers. In the present petition, writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought seeking quashing of the order dated 17th July, 1987 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Manager of the Bank and the order dated 10th July, 1987 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Managing Director of the Bank. The case set out in the writ petition is that vide Annexure P-1, petitioners being employees of the Bank, were given 20 percent bonus. Relevant portion of the resolution passed by the Bank, whereby bonus was announced, is reproduced below: “Agenda Civil Writ Petition No. 5757 of 1987 Sanction of Bonus for the year 1985-86 to the employees of the Bank Employees for consideration. According to the balance sheet for the year 1985-86 a sum of Rs.1,81,339.88 has been earned as profit. This profit is due to the fact that the employees of the Bank have worked hard and with devotion. As such keeping in view the good hard work put in by the employees approval is granted for giving them bonus @ 20% for the year 1985-86. Sd/- Bahadur Singh Administrator P.A.D.B. Ropar” A letter issued by the authorities reveal that as per the norms of the Government, maximum permissible bonus is 8.33 percent of the wages earned by the employees during the year. Therefore, petitioners were paid bonus in excess. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure P-3) was passed by the Manager, for depositing back the excess bonus paid to the petitioners. In the notice, it was stated that the petitioners, being employees, had received 11.67 percent excess bonus for the year 1985-86 and they were called upon to pay back the excess amount of bonus within ten days. Similarly, Annexure P-4 was a letter issued by the Secretary on behalf of the Managing Director, in which it was stated that for the year ending 30th June, 1986, the employees had received 11.67 percent excess of the pay drawn as bonus during the year and this is against the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Petitioners have also attached a table as Annexure P-2, wherein calculations have been made regarding the amount, which was due to the petitioners @ 8.33 percent and what has been received by them as 20 percent of the amount. They have also calculated the excess amount 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 5757 of 1987 paid. The list will reveal that petitioner No.1 was paid Rs.2240.00 in excess. Similarly, Jarnail Singh Clerk petitioner No.2 was paid Rs.1707.13 in excess; Kehar Singh Clerk petitioner No.3 was paid Rs.1776.27 in excess; Gurbhag Singh Clerk petitioner No.4 was paid Rs.1662.42 in excess; Shankar Singh Field Officer petitioner No.5 was paid Rs.2240.00 in excess; Tarlochan Singh Accountant petitioner No.6 was also paid Rs.2240.00 in excess; Jarnail Singh Clerk petitioner No.7 was paid Rs.1667.11 in excess; Sis Ram Accountant petitioner No.8 was paid 157.27 in excess and Smt. Balbir Kaur Peon petitioner No.9 was paid Rs.1133.37 in excess. In all, the total amount paid in excess to the employees is Rs.45733.04. This payment was made to the employees in the year 1985- 86. Writ petition was filed in year 1987. Recovery of the amount was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court on September 01, 1987. Counsel for the petitioners states that out of the 24 employees, 7 have retired, 2 have expired, 1 has been dismissed from service and 1 has left the service and is in Canada. Keeping in view the very fact that the amount was paid in year 1986 and the amount is meager qua each employee, the recovery as ordered vide orders (Annexure P-3 and P-4) is not called for, particularly when there was no misrepresentation or misstatement on the part of the petitioners and the amount was given by the Bank as a bounty, without asking by the employees. Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed and the orders (Annexure P-3 and P-4) are set aside. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 04, 2008 rps 3