Allowed

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2009CWP/14496/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a writ petition quashing an order that directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 44,657/- after pay re-fixation. The court held that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation as established in a precedent, the State had no right to effect recovery.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered not to effect recovery from the petitioner.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 14496 of 2009

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 10, 2009

¶5

SUKHDEV SINGH

¶6

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶13

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for quashing order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), by virtue of which the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.44,657/-.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner confines the claim in challenge to recovery only. Re-fixation of pay is accepted.

¶15

A perusal of order (Annexure P-1) indicates that after re-

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 14496 of 2009

¶17

¶18

fixation of pay of the petitioner, the amount to be recovered from the petitioner has been calculated.

¶19

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the pay had initially been fixed by the respondents, the petitioner did not play any fraud and had not misrepresented facts. In such circumstances, the issue is covered by Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. state of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that, in deed, there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented facts.

¶21

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra).

¶22

The petition is, accordingly, allowed in limited terms viz. the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

December 10, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

¶25

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶26

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.

Kans Raj and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Subhadra Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Is Chahal Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Shivali Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sudesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab and Ors.