KULDIP SINGH, J. - (1.) The present petitioners retired as Senior Assistants between the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 from the respondent Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation'), earlier known as Punjab State Tubewell Corporation). They had joined on different dates in the year 1978. The petitioners were not paid their leave encashment on the ground that two writ petitions bearing CWP No.1267 of 1999 and CWP No.9718 of 2000 were pending. The controversy in both the writ petitions was as to whether the ad hoc service is to be counted for the purpose of seniority or not Respondent Corporation while fixing the seniority of some of the officials of the respondent corporation gave them benefit of ad hoc service, which was challenged by the present petitioners. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Corporation considered the matter and decided not to count ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority. All the petitioners were initially appointed on regular basis and none of them had availed any benefit of ad hoc service either towards seniority or promotion. As leave encashment payment was not released, the petitioners filed CWP No.17652 of 2012, seeking release of their leave encashment. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.7.2014. It was noticed by the Court that during pendency of the writ petition, the retiral benefits have been released to the petitioners, however, some recoveries have been made from the retiral benefits. Therefore, the petition was disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition, seeking interest on account of delay in payment of pension and challenge the recovery effected from their retrial benefits on account of excess payment of salary. It is stated that no notice was given to the petitioners before effecting the recovery. The recoveries have been illegally effected. According to the petitioners, following is the chart of the recoveries effected from them:- JUDGEMENT_50_LAWS(P&H)8_2016.jpg JUDGEMENT_50_LAWS(P&H)8_2016 1.jpg
(2.) Hence, the petitioners seek the quashing of order dated 17.4.2014 (Annexure P2) (Colly), issued to petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and order dated 5.5.2011 (Annexure P4), issued to petitioner No.4, vide which, the recoveries were effected illegally. Petitioners seek further prayer for refund of the amount so recovered illegally and pay interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of leave encashment.
(3.) In the written statement, the respondent Corporation took the 67 of 1999, the petitioners had challenged seniority list circulated by the respondent Corporation, which was then known as Punjab State Tubewell Corporation on the ground that benefit of ad hoc service could not be given to some of the employees. During pendency of the said CWP No.1267 of 1999 and another connected CWP No.9718 of 2000, certain benefits were released to the petitioners on tentative basis on the firm assurance given by the petitioners in the form of sworn affidavits that they have no objection to the adjustment of recovery of overpaid dues in case it is found so after the decision of the said pending writ petitions. It is stated that after the decision of the writ petitions, the excess amount found to be drawn by the petitioners on account of stepping up of their pay on account of equation of their pay with another employee Roshan Lal, who had been given higher seniority and higher pay after counting of ad hoc service, and same was deducted from the leave encashment. It was so done as per the undertaking of the petitioners. There is no illegality in the said order.;