Allowed

Boota Singh etc. v. State Ofpb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2009CWP/18257/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged recovery proceedings initiated by the State of Punjab based on an audit objection regarding wrongly fixed pay. The court held that without fraud or misrepresentation, no recovery could be initiated or continued. A direction was issued to refund any recovery made during the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings restrained; any recovery effected during the interregnum period to be refunded within four months.

Boota Singh etc. Vs State Ofpb.Etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 18257 of 2004

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 18257 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: November 17, 2009

¶5

Boota Singh and Others

¶6

.........PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and Others

¶9

......RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate recovery from the petitioners on the basis of audit objection Annexure P-1.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, states that the challenge in this petition is only confined to recovery.

¶16

Learned counsel contends that on the basis of the objection, the respondents are initiating recovery proceedings from the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter is covered by judgment dated 22.05.2009 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others bearing CWP No. 2799

¶17

C.W.P. No. 18257 of 2004

¶18

¶19

of 2008. The petitioners had not played any fraud or misrepreseneted the facts to actuate release the benefits on account of which pay had been wrongly fixed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent states that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had played fraud or had misrepresented facts. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute that the matter would be covered by judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra).

¶21

In view of the above, this petition is allowed in limited terms. The respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioners. Consequently, it is directed that any recovery effected during the interregnum period would be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶22

17.11.2009 shivani

¶23

(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE

¶24

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶25

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Boota Singh etc. v. State Ofpb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boota Singh etc. v. State Ofpb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Naresh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jagdev Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Pritpal Singh Vs State of Pb.

Sukhraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kushalia Gupta Vs State of Punjab & Anr.