IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 9228 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION : 20.08.2009
Sukhdev Chand
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate,
for the respondents.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 27.12.1971 in
the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as
`the respondents’). After putting in more than 31 years of service, he retired
from the service of the respondents on 28.2.2003. After his retirement,an
amount of Rs. 22,930/- was deducted from the gratuity payable to him.
According to the respondents, this deduction was made on account of
wrongly granting the senior/junior increment to the petitioner, to which he
was not legally entitled. Further, an amount of Rs. 40,684/- was also ordered
to be recovered from the petitioner, vide order dated 18.8.2005, on the
CWP No. 9228 of 2006 -2-
ground that he remained under suspension from 11.3.1976 to 5.10.1976 and
had been on leave without pay from 2.1.1977 to 20.7.1977, but both these
periods were not deducted from the period of reckonable service of the
petitioner, while granting him increments. An amount of Rs. 15,000/-,
which was payable to the petitioner as arrears on account of additional
increment on completion of 24 years of service under the Assured Career
Progression (ACP) Scheme, was adjusted against the aforesaid recovery and
the remaining amount of Rs.25,684/- has been recovered from the salary of
the petitioner in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/-.
In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing
the aforesaid deductions and recovery from him, being illegal and arbitrary,
with a further prayer for directing the respondents to pay the said amount
with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner
was granted the increments as per the Service Rules. Even the respondents
were very much aware of the suspension period and the period of leave
without pay, but after more than 20 years of granting the said benefit, they
have recovered the aforesaid amount on the ground that the same was
wrongly granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that for the grant
of the said benefit, the petitioner neither made any mis-representation nor
played any fraud on the respondents. The respondents, on their own, under
the Service Rules, granted the benefit of additional increment to the
petitioner. Similarly, the deduction of Rs. 22,930/- has been made from the
CWP No. 9228 of 2006 -3-
gratuity payable to the petitioner, on the ground that the said amount was
paid to him on account of wrongly granting the senior/junior increment, to
which he was not legally entitled. Learned counsel submits that for granting
the said benefit also, the petitioner did not commit any fraud or
misrepresentation. Therefore, after his retirement, the said amount cannot be
recovered, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs.
State of Haryana, 1994 (5) SLR 753 and Bihar State Electricity Board and
another Vs. Bijay Bahadur and another, 2000 (10) SCC 99 and the Full
Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others, (CWP No. 2799 of 2008, decided on May 22, 2009).
Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the
aforesaid factual and legal position. He could not controvert the submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner that at no point of time, the aforesaid
benefits were granted on account of fraud or misrepresentation on the part
of the petitioner. It is not even the case of the respondents in the written
statement. When learned counsel for the respondents could not defend the
illegal action of the respondents, he sought time to have instructions from
the respondents. Subsequently, he informed that order be passed on merits.
After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I
am of the opinion that the aforesaid deduction of Rs. 22,930/- from the
gratuity payable to the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 40,684/- (by adjusting
Rs. 15,000/- payable as arrears and recovering the remaining amount of
Rs.25,684/- in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/-) are totally illegal and
CWP No. 9228 of 2006 -4-
unjust. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents
referred the affidavit given by the petitioner on 7.7.2003, in which it was
stated by him that the recovery due from him may be deducted from his
gratuity and he will have no objection. In this regard, learned counsel for the
petitioner explained that when the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not
being released, the said affidavit was given by him. However, he submits
that only lawful recovery could have been deducted from his gratuity. In
this case, no misrepresentation or fraud was played by the petitioner in
getting the benefits of senior/junior increment and the grant of increment
under the ACP Scheme, when the aforesaid two benefits were granted to the
petitioner more than 20 years before his retirement. Thus, the said benefits
could not have been recovered from him after his retirement, on the ground
that the said benefits were wrongly granted to him. The case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down in Sahib Ram’s case
(supra), Bihar State Electricity Board’s case (supra) and Budh Ram’s case
(supra).
In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed with costs.
The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 63,614/-
(Rs.22,930/- + Rs. 40,684/-) to the petitioner within a period of three
months, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The costs are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.
August 20, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE