CHANDER MUKHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in making recovery from her salary.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that recovery could not have been made from the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) 2015 (1) RSJ 177 wherein it was held that unless the employer came to a reasoned conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for over payment the recovery cannot be made from him. In the reply, it has not been denied that the petitioner is a Class-IV employee and that increments were wrongly granted to her without any malfeasance on her part.

(3.) In the circumstances, it has to be held that the recovery was illegal. This however would not be the end of the matter. I find that this is the second writ petition filed by petitioner for this relief. On the first occasion this Court had directed the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 7.10.2008. In that legal notice the petitioner had given an example of a similarly situated employees in whose case the recovery had been quashed. In the legal notice the petitioner had claimed interest also. In the legal notice it was specifically brought out that the basic order dtd. 22/8/2003 was set aside by this Court in CWP-18601-2006 titled as Om Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others. However while passing the impugned order the respondents have acted in a most cavalier fashion and needlessly driven this Class-IV employee time and again to the Court.