C.W.P. No.12544 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12544 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 Harnek Chander Sharma .....PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.A.K. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the impugned order dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 directing respondent No.3 to recover the excess amount of Rs.2,41,760/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on account of withdrawal of the benefit of higher pay scales granted to the petitioner after completion of 9 and 16 years of service; as well as Recovery Statement dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-10) issued by respondent No.2 imposing recovery of the aforesaid amount. With the consent of the parties, the main case has been taken up for hearing. The admitted facts of the case are that vide order dated C.W.P. No.12544 of 2007 (O&M) -2- 12.8.1993 the petitioner was granted the benefit of promotional scale w.e.f. 3.3.1988 on completion of 9 years of service and subsequently he was granted further benefit of the second promotional scale vide order dated 18.7.1996 w.e.f. 3.3.1995 on completion of 16 years of service. On 30.8.2001, the petitioner was promoted to the post of JE-I. It is the case of the petitioner that due to family circumstances, the petitioner could not avail the promotion and made a representation for permission to forego his promotion, which was accepted vide order dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure P5). It is the case of the petitioner that in the said order there was no condition that the benefit of higher pay scales already granted to him shall also be liable to be withdrawn. It is the case of the respondents that since the petitioner forego his promotion on 4.9.2001, therefore, he was not entitled for the aforesaid benefit. It has been further stated that since prior to 4.9.2001, the petitioner was not entitled for the aforesaid benefit, therefore, after re-fixing his pay, the aforesaid recovery was ordered against him. Counsel for the petitioner stated that in the instant petition the petitioner is not questioning the re-fixation of his pay. He confines his prayer only to the extent of the recovery made from him on account of the said re-fixation of pay. He submits that no recovery on account of excess amount already paid to the petitioner can be made from him as he did not play any fraud or made any misrepresentation. He further states that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Division Bench judgments of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another (CWP No.6730 of 2006) decided on May 21, 2007 and Sardara Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (CWP No.3827 of C.W.P. No.12544 of 2007 (O&M) -3- 2006) decided on May 24, 2007 in which it has been held that the respondents cannot recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner, particularly when the said amount was released on the wrong interpretation of the rules/instructions without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the aforesaid factual and legal position and states that in view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgments of this Court, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.2,41,760/-, which was deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, within the period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. November 10, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE