Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board Now ... on 19 August, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.14769 of 2010
Date of Decision : August 19, 2010.
Karnail Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Punjab State Electricity Board now PSPCL and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Manish Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner joined the respondent-Board as a Lineman and finally retired as AAE/J.E. Grade-I w.e.f. 31.8.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, a `No Due Certificate' dated 14.3.2007 (Annexure P-3) was issued in his favour which suggests that nothing was recoverable from him.
Notwithstanding the `No Dues Certificate', the respondents passed an order dated 29.8.2007 for the recovery of Rs.68,274.02 and deducted the same from the petitioner's gratuity. Aggrieved, the petitioner represented the authorities several times, followed by a legal notice dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure P-2) to which no response has been received so far. C.W.P.No.14769 of 2010 2
Since the recovery order was passed without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner and assigning any reason whatsoever, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take cognizance of the afore-stated legal notice dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure P-2) served on behalf of the petitioner and redress his grievance by passing a speaking order. Suffice it to say that if the disputed amount had already been recovered from the petitioner before the 'No Dues Certificate' was issued and subsequent recovery has been made erroneously, the respondents shall refund the recovered amount to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 7% per annum. Similarly, if the recovery is effected because of erroneous pay fixation and/or other service benefits wrongly granted to the petitioner, the recovered amount shall still be refunded to the petitioner in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333. The speaking order in this regard shall be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Disposed of.
Dasti.
August 19, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE