Disposed

Bimla Devi v. Pseb

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2009CWP/19905/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition quashing an order withholding time-bound scales and recovering amounts from the petitioner's salary. It directed the respondents to cease recovery of paid amounts while allowing future salary re-fixation per circulars upon acceptance of the promotional post.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to recover amounts already paid to the petitioner.

Bimla Devi Vs Pseb — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 19905 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 19905 of 2008 Decided on : 18-04-2009

Bimla Devi

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others.

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL .

¶11

Present:Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral).

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2, whereby 1^st and 2^nd time bound scales after the completion of 9/16 years of service allowed to the petitioner, has been ordered to be withheld from the date of foregoing her promotion. It has further been averred that on the basis of the said order, the respondents have started recovering huge amount from the salaries of the petitioner every month.

¶14

At the time of arguments, in view of the decision given by this Court in Karnail singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala (C.W.P. No.6730 of 2006) decided on 21.5.2007, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only for quashing action of the respondents

¶15

C.W.P. No. 19905 of 2008

¶16

-2-

¶17

of recovering the amount from the petitioner while leaving the challenge to the withdrawal of advanced promotional increments and re-fixation of the salary in accordance with impugned order dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure P-4).

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions received from the Board has fairly conceded that as far as the recovery of the payment, which has been made, will not be effected from the petitioner. However, his pay will be refixed according to the clarification/circular dated 10.11.2004 and 31.12.2004 issued by the Board and in view of order dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure P-4).

¶19

In view of the said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents not to recover the amount already paid to the petitioner. However, it will be open to the respondent-Board to re-fix the salary in terms of the relevant circular. As and when the petitioner accepts the promotional post, the aforesaid benefits which have been withdrawn will be restored in accordance with the circular dated 10.11.2004 and 31.12.2004.

¶20

18^th April, 2009. Monika

¶21

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Bimla Devi v. Pseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Devi v. Pseb

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

M/S P M Electronics Vs P S E B

Sumitra Devi Vs Uhbvn Ltd. and Ors.

Satbir Singh Vs Registrar, Coop. Societies and Anr.

Harjinder Singh Vs Joint Registrar Coop. Societies Patiala and Ors.

Sham Lal Garg Vs State of Punjab and Others

Baldev Singh Vs Pseb and Ors.