CWP-3690-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 1398 Smt. Krishna Rani State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: None for the Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing order dated 24.01.2012 thereby the principle of natural justice. 2. In the index of the petition CWP No.3228 of 2012 while issuing noti up along with however, during pendency of the present petition relevant where 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3690 Date of decision: Smt. Krishna Rani Versus State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY None for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) Prayer made in the present petition for quashing order dated thereby salary of the petitioner was refixed the principle of natural justice. In the index of the petition, reference was made to pendency of CWP No.3228 of 2012 titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab while issuing notice of motion on 28.02.2012, up along with it and interim orders were also passed in the same terms which during pendency of the present petition whereof read thus:- “Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P2), vide which recovery of the alleged excess amount of Rs.42,008/ made from the retiral benefits of the petitioner to be precise from the gratuity. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Budh Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012(8) SCC 417. He has further stated that the State of Punjab itself has issued instructions dated 15.10.2012 wherein it has further been IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3690-2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025 ..Petitioner ..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing order dated was refixed without complying with reference was made to pendency of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab etc., thus 28.02.2012, the present petition was to come and interim orders were also passed in the same terms which during pendency of the present petition, was disposed of on 21.02.2013 ner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the (Annexure P2), vide which recovery of the alleged excess amount of Rs.42,008/- has been ordered to be made from the retiral benefits of the petitioner to be precise from s, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Budh Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad al and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012(8) SCC 417. He has further stated that the State of Punjab itself has issued instructions dated 15.10.2012 wherein it has further been -1- Prayer made in the present petition for quashing order dated with reference was made to pendency of thus, the present petition was to come and interim orders were also passed in the same terms which was disposed of on 21.02.2013, ner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the (Annexure P2), vide which recovery of has been ordered to be made from the retiral benefits of the petitioner to be precise from s, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Budh Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad al and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012(8) SCC 417. He has further stated that the State of Punjab itself has issued instructions dated 15.10.2012 wherein it has further been ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.03 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3690-2012 -2- stated that where there is no mis-statement, fraud and mis- representation on the part of the employee, no recovery is to be effected from the retiral benefits. Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had either mis- stated, mis-represented or committed a fraud upon the respondents while the benefit of proficiency step-up and increments were granted to the petitioner. In the light of the above facts, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P2) to the extent of recovery from the petitioner amounting to Rs.42,008/- is hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, effected from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.” 3. Learned State counsel being unable to controvert regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law, in view of which, the present petition is disposed of in terms thereof. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 03.07.2025 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.03 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document