HARDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the notice (Annexure P-3) vide which recovery of Rs. 5,36,058/- is being sought to be effected from her on account of grant of annual increments erroneously. The impugned notice would show that the petitioner was being asked to deposit this amount repeatedly but he failed to respond eventually leading to the issuance of said notice intending to recover the amount from his salary from September 2014.

(2.) The petitioner contends that such a recovery is impermissible in law as no misrepresentation was made by the petitioner and the increments were granted to her. He places reliance on Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012 4 SCT 277 where it has been observed as under:-

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