Court allowed petition challenging order effecting pay refixation and recovery from pensionary benefits under Proficiency Step Up Scheme. Held respondents cannot recover from pensionary benefits; to refund if any recovery effected.
Respondents directed that if any recovery was effected, amount shall be refunded to petitioner within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.20977 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 12, 2009
Sant Ram
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
The petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges Order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure P-2).
Perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that on an objection having been raised by the Chief Accountant General, Punjab, in regard to benefit given to the petitioner under Proficiency Step Up Scheme on completion of 8/16/24 years of service, the pay has been refixed and recovery has been ordered.
CWP No.20977 of 2008 [2]
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contends that the petitioner confines the prayer in challenge to recovery only.
In regard to the limited prayer, learned counsel states that the benefits were released by the respondents. The petitioner had not actuated the release of benefits under the Proficiency Step Up Scheme by way of fraud or misrepresentation and therefore, the matter would be covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 ( Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others ).
Learned counsel for the respondents states that indeed, there is no material to show that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented facts for initial fixation of pay.
In view of the above, it remains the conceded position that the matter is covered by Budh Ram’s case (supra) .
Considering the above, the petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 ( Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others ).
CWP No.20977 of 2008 [3]
It is held that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents are directed that if any recovery has been effected from the petitioner, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(AJAI LAMBA)
November 12, 2009 JUDGE
avin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents can effect recovery from petitioner's pensionary benefits following refixation of pay under Proficiency Step Up Scheme.
Whether matter is covered by Full Bench judgment in Budh Ram case regarding recovery without fraud or misrepresentation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & OthersFollowed¶20
Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others)
Sant Ram
State of Punjab
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
