GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the orders dated 4.5.2010 and 13.7.2011 by which recovery has been effected from him on account of excess payment made to him in lieu of component of leave encashment from his retiral dues. The petitioner superannuated from his service on 14.5.2002 and was granted his retiral dues. On 13.6.2006 respondent No.1 issued a notice for recovery of the amount what they have described as excess payment made on account of entitlement of leave encashment to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to this notice but the respondent No.1 referred the matter to the arbitrator under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since the respondents No.1 and 2 failed to prosecute that case, the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 9.5.2008 and on appeal filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 the matter was restored and the proceedings were conducted afresh. The issue was then decided on 16.7.2009 where the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (East) opined in favour of the petitioner. The said respondents then filed an appeal under Section 68 of the said Act before respondent No.5, which was accepted vide order dated 4.5.2010. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act against the award dated 4.5.2010 which was dismissed by respondent No.6 vide order dated 13.7.2011 which led to the filing of instant petition where the petitioner questions the impugned orders on the ground that once he had not made a misrepresentation to the respondents regarding grant of the benefits due to him, the respondents could not resort to recovery from him particularly after a period of four years from the time when the benefit was made admissible to him.

(2.) The respondents have justified their action and have stated that they were very well within their right to rectify the error. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in resorting to a recovery at a belated stage more particularly when the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation to obtain in excess such a benefit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others,2012 4 RSJ 139 observed as under :

(3.) In the same very judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-