Anita Rani vs Pseb & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203
CWP-9859-2000
Date of decision: 10.09.2026
Anita Rani .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate with
Mr. Daljit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Bhatti, Advocate
for the respondents.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ
of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.06.2000 (Annexure P-6),
whereby the date of joining of the petitioner has been ordered to be
considered the date when the petitioner joined back after availing her
maternity leave and it has further been directed to recover the salary for
the said period which had already been released in favour of the
petitioner.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, in pursuance to
the advertisement issued by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board
(now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited), whereby certain posts
of Upper Division Clerks were advertised, the petitioner was selected
and issued an appointment letter dated 07.12.1995 (Annexure P-1).
VINAY
2026.09.14 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-9859-2000 -2-
Thereafter, she was medically examined by the Assistant Civil Surgeon,
Jalandhar, who certified that the petitioner has no disease and bodily
infirmity except pregnancy and declared the petitioner medically fit to
join the office as Upper Division Clerk, vide certificate dated
21.12.1995 (Annexure P-2). Consequently, the petitioner joined service
on 22.12.1995. The petitioner availed maternity leave for a period of
180 days with effect from 12.01.1996 and upon completion thereof, she
rejoined duty on 12.07.1996. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.08.1996
(Annexure P-3), the benefits for the period of maternity leave were
released to the petitioner. However, subsequently, vide order dated
07.06.2000 (Annexure P-6), it was ordered that the joining of the
petitioner be treated as having taken place after expiry of the maternity
leave period. Consequently, the date of joining of the petitioner in
service was treated as 12.07.1996 instead of 22.12.1995, and further
recovery for the salary paid to the petitioner for the intervening period
was ordered against the petitioner. It is the said order which has been
impugned in the present petition.
3. While issuing notice of motion on 01.08.2000, recovery
from the petitioner was ordered to be stayed.
4. The stand taken by the respondents in the written statement
is that the petitioner joined her duties as Upper Division Clerk on
22.12.1995 and applied for maternity leave with effect from
12.01.1996, i.e., after about 21 days of joining the service. Thereafter,
she rejoined her duties on 12.07.1996 and the benefits of maternity
leave were sanctioned, vide office order dated 27.08.1996. It has further
been stated that the Chief Engineer, vide letter dated 11.07.1996, raised
VINAY
2026.09.14 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-9859-2000 -3-
an objection as to how the petitioner was allowed to join the duty and
she ought to have been allowed to join duty only after completion of the
maternity leave period. They have also placed reliance upon the
instructions dated 20.05.1992 issued by the Punjab Government, which
were adopted by the Board, vide circular No.28/96 dated 23.07.1996
and stated that these instructions are not applicable with retrospective
effect and accordingly, the petitioner was wrongly allowed to join duty
during the period of her pregnancy.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the
petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.03.2026, therefore, the petitioner restricts her
claim only qua the recovery part and submits that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
etc., 2015(1) S.C.T., 195 . He further submits that the petitioner is also
entitled for gratuity and GPF, which has been withheld by the
respondents.
6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits
that, since the date of joining of the petitioner is liable to be treated as
12.07.1996 as per instructions dated 20.05.1992, i.e., the date on which
she rejoined duty after availing the maternity leave, therefore, recovery
has rightly been ordered against the petitioner. However, learned
counsel for the respondents could not dispute the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra) .
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
VINAY
2026.09.14 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-9859-2000 -4-
8. Admittedly, the petitioner joined services on 22.12.1995
pursuant to the appointment letter dated 07.12.1995. The medical
certificate specifically recorded her pregnancy, which was thus within
the knowledge of the respondents. The petitioner, thereafter, availed
maternity leave for a period of 180 days, w.e.f., 12.01.1996, which was
subsequently sanctioned by the respondents, and the benefits were
released to her, vide order dated 27.08.1996 (Annexure P-3). Thus,
there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or concealment on the
part of the petitioner.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rafiq Masih's case
(supra) , while considering the issue of recovery, has held as under:-
“12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of
recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by
the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it
may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we
may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few
situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) .
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who
are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment
has been made for a period in excess of five years, before
the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully
been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has
been paid accordingly, even though he should have
rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of
the employer's right to recover. ”
10. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case and law
VINAY
2026.09.14 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-9859-2000 -5-
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case
(supra) , the recovery ordered against the petitioner cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed and the recovery, as
ordered from the petitioner (which was stayed by this Court, vide order
dated 01.08.2000), is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed
to release the payment of gratuity and GPF to the petitioner, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
10.09.2026 ( NAMIT KUMAR )
Vinay
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VINAY
2026.09.14 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment