Shanu Ram vs The Pepsu Roadways Transport … on 21 October, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                         C.W.P. No. 2644 of 2006 (O&M)

                         DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 21, 2009

Shanu Ram

                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                Versus

The Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation,
Patiala and others
                                                      ....RESPONDENTS


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
                         ---

Present:    Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate,
            for the respondents.
                   ..

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

This petition was admitted on May 1, 2007 and today C.M.

No.5542 of 2008 has been listed for hearing. However, with the consent of

the counsel for the parties, the main case has been taken up for hearing.

I have heard the counsel for the parties on merits.

The petitioner retired from the services of the Pepsu Road

Transport Corporation, Patiala on 31.1.2005 on attaining the age of

superannuation. After his retirement, vide order dated 1.9.2005 (Annexure

P5), respondent No.2 ordered for recovery of Rs.24,887/- from his retiral

benefits on the ground that in the year 1994 he was wrongly given annual

increment on 1.8.1994, which in fact should have been given to him on

1.5.1995.

In the impugned order, it has been stated that on promotion as

Service Station Incharge from Head Electrician on 27.4.1994, the petitioner
C.W.P. No. 2644 of 2006 (O&M) -2-

was entitled for one increment which was given to him w.e.f. 3.5.1994 (date

of his joining duty on the promotional post). Immediately, three months;

thereafter the petitioner was granted next annual increment on 1.8.1994,

which should have actually been granted on 1.5.1995. Vide impugned order,

by making the correction and re-fixing the pay of the petitioner, the

recovery of the aforesaid amount was ordered.

Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the Full Bench

decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and

others, (CWP No.2799 of 2008) decided on 22.5.2005 and Sahib Ram v.

State of Haryana, 1994(5) SLR 753, contends that the petitioner was neither

directly nor indirectly responsible for giving him the said benefit of one

increment, and at no point of time he had made any misrepresentation for

granting the said benefit. Rather, the respondents on their own have granted

the said benefit. Therefore, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner

and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions.

Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the aforesaid

factual position and states that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered

by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram’s case ( supra).

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the

impugned order dated 1.9.2005 (Annexure P5) is set aside, and the

respondents are directed to re-pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of

this order.

October 21, 2009                        (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
vkg                                             JUDGE