SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 19305 of 2010 and 7895 of 2012, as the issue raised therein is common. However, the facts have been extracted from C.W.P. No. 19305 of 2010. The petitioners, who are working/retired as teachers in different schools, have filed the present petitions impugning the orders vide which the recovery of the house rent allowance allegedly excess paid earlier is sought to be made.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the recovery is sought to be made, without issuing even any show cause notice. Still further it was submitted that in the process of payment of amount in question, the petitioners did not mislead any authority, hence, it is harsh on the petitioners to ask them to pay the amount, in some cases after the petitioners had retired, whereas in some cases during their service but after long duration. In support of the plea, reliance has been placed upon judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others,, 2009(3) S.C.T. 333 and of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, : 2012 (4) S.C.T. 227. However, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the amount which was paid to the petitioners was not payable in terms of the instructions issued by the Government, rather it was a wrong payment.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.