Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Malkiat Singh Son Of Shri Ajaib Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 16 January, 2012

Author: K. Kannan

Bench: K. Kannan

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                   Civil Writ Petition No.16582 of 2004 (O&M)
                   Date of decision: 16.01.2012

Malkiat Singh son of Shri Ajaib Singh, resident of VPO Noorpur
Bet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
                                                  ....Petitioner


                              versus


Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its
Secretary, and others.
                                             ....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
                    ----

Present:    Mr. B.N. Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            None for the respondents.
                             ----

1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
      judgment ? No.
2.    To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
                               ----

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

1. There is no representation for the respondents. The only point urged by the petitioner is that after retirement, the respondents were attempting to make a recovery of Rs.31,153/- from the petitioner from his salary on account of alleged excess payment made during his employment. In the reply, it is stated that the benefit of promotion increment could have been granted to an employee on completion of 23 years of service if only he or she had Civil Writ Petition No.16582 of 2004 (O&M) -2- not earned 3 regular promotions in service from the date of joining or has not earned 3 promotions between 16th and 23rd year of service. If a promotion increment had been wrongly given so long as it is not on account of any fraud of misrepresentation or so long as excess payment has not been made due to clerical mistake, there is no scope for a recovery in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others-2009(3) PLR 511. The writ petition is allowed and the recovery ordered is quashed. If the amount has been recovered already, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount recovered shall also bear interest at 7.5% from today.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE 16.01.2012 sanjeev