High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/31683/2019disposed of

Baljit Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And Others

2019-11-01Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-31683-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-31683-2019 Date of decision: - 01.11.2019 Baljit Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: - Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner argues that after the retirement of the petitioner, keeping in view the objections raised by the Accounts Officer of the respondent-Corporation, the respondents refixed the salary of the petitioner and had found that excess payment amounting to `52167/- has been made to him, which is being recovered by giving 10 days notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that recovery from a retired employee has been held to be bad by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015(1) S.C.T., 195 and the respondents have also issued the instructions dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-8) in that regard, but still without adhering to the instructions, which have been issued on the basis of the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme NARESH KUMAR 2019.11.05 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-31683-2019 -2Court of India in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), the recovery is being ordered against the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has also filed a representation dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-7) with the respondents contending that no recovery can be made from a retired employee, but rather than deciding the said representation, the respondents are going ahead to recover the said amount. Counsel for the petitioner further states that petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the said representation in accordance with law, keeping in view the instructions dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-8), which has been circulated in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), by passing a speaking order.

In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim as being made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-7) by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Present writ petition stands disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) November 01, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.11.05 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh