The State of Punjab and Others vs Joginder Kaur

The appellants are aggrieved by quashing of recovery notice dated 7.2.2007 in the light of judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995(1) SCT 668.

The respondent was working as Principal in a Government Senior Secondary School and retired on 31.10.2006. The respondent drew Special Administrative Allowance @ Rs. 300 per month from the date of her appointment upto September, 2004. An audit objection was raised and by that time, the respondent had already drawn Rs. 11,700/ -. After retirement, notice dated 7.2.2007 was issued, requiring her to deposit the said amount. The respondent filed a writ petition, challenging the said letter. It was submitted that the Special Administrative Allowance @ Rs. 300/- per month was admissible to her. The impugned letter was issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. She had not concealed anything or made any confession while drawing the allowance.

The petition was contested by submitting that the Special Administrative Allowance stood abolished w.e.f. 20.7.1998. Since the Principals were the Drawing and Disbursing Officers themselves, the principle of estoppel could not apply to the recovery from the respondent.

Learned Single Judge allowed the claim following judgment of this Court in Harnam Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. C.W.P. No. 17571 of 2004 dated 30.7.2007.

Learned Counsel for the appellants is not aware about the status of the judgment which has been followed in the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the said judgment was a DB judgment which has become final.

The fact remains that the matter is covered by judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram (supra). A Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. C.W.P. No. 2799 of 2008 decided on 22.5.2008 has reiterated the said principles. The respondent having not made any mis-representation or concealment, recovery of the amount already paid could not be sustained. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed.