Petitioner challenged recovery of excess pay from leave encashment without prior notice. Court disposed of petition directing respondent to afford an opportunity and pass a reasoned order.
Direction to respondent No. 2 to hear petitioner, apprise him of reasons for recovery, and decide finally after affording opportunity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No. 14276 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 14276 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.11.2012
Balwant Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. A. K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioner, who retired from service on 30.4.2011, has approached this court with a grievance that sum of ` 1,17,326/- have been recovered from his leave encashment. The action was taken by the authorities without even issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and informing him the reason for which the recovery was to be effected.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after audit, it was found that the petitioner had been granted higher pay scale wrongly. Vide communication dated 26.9.2007, the excess amount paid to the petitioner was directed to be recovered. On the basis thereof, recovery from the pay of the petitioner was also made in December, 2007 and April, 2008. However, he did not dispute that thereafter no recovery was made and the entire amount, which was allegedly excess paid to the petitioner was recovered from his leave encashment on retirement. Learned counsel further did not dispute that before effecting recovery from the leave encashment, no opportunity was given to the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made by them, in my opinion, the present petition can be
C.W.P. No. 14276 of 2011 [2]
disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No. 2 to hear the petitioner and apprise him the reasons in detail on account of which recovery has been effected from him. After considering the submissions, which may be made by the petitioner, the issue be decided finally. In case, it is found that the amount was to be recovered from the petitioner, a reasoned order be passed. In case, it is found that the amount was not to be recovered from the petitioner, the same be paid back to him. Ordered accordingly.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
15.11.2012 mk
Balwant Singh
The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
another
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
