- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.04.2007 (Annexure P3), whereby the pay of the petitioner has been refixed/reduced and the order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P7), whereby the excess amount of Rs. 1,75,689/ -, drawn by him, on account of the refixation, was directed to be recovered along with interest.
(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Accountant on 20.04.1977 and was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer in the year 1992 and was never awarded any punishment. Vide order dated 01.05.1986, a Committee, consisting of the Board of Directors, decided to give him two advance increments, on account of exceptional good work done by him in settling the accounts with dedication and devotion. That vide order dated 19.03.2007, the pay of the petitioner was reduced and re -fixed from Rs. 11,300/ - to Rs. 10,475/ -. A similar order was passed on 17.04.2007, to the same effect, superseding the earlier order. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued on 01.05.2007 as to why the recovery of Rs. 1,75,689/ - be not made from him. The petitioner represented to the Appellate Committee that his pay has been arbitrarily reduced and the recovery issue may be decided after the appeal against the refixation order was decided. However, refixation was ordered vide the order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P7).
(3.) RESULTANTLY , the writ petition was filed and the recovery from the salary was ordered to be stayed vide order dated 18.03.2008, by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, on 27.05.2008, the matter was adjourned sine die, to be listed after the decision of the Larger Bench in RSA No.4507 of 2003 titled Jai Krishan Verma Vs. Chief Executive Officer and others, in view of the reference on the issue that if there is no fraud and misrepresentation, in re -fixing the salary, whether recovery could be effected from the employees. The Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana,2009 154 PunLR 511 thereafter, held that the recovery of service benefits in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation cannot be there. Accordingly, the matter was listed for decision on merits. No written statement has been filed by the respondents and nobody is present, on behalf of the respondents, despite being informed of the date of hearing. The case of Jai Krishan Verma was also allowed by a Single Bench of this Court, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram .;