Partly allowed

Prem Nath v. the State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2010CWP/10757/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order recovering overpaid allowances from a retired teacher, relying on the principle that recovery without fraud is impermissible. The court denied immediate interest but allowed it after a four-month delay in implementation. Respondents were directed to decide the teacher's pending claim for a proficiency step-up.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order quashed; refund of Rs. 26,450/- directed; interest @ 7% per annum allowed after 4 months; direction to decide proficiency step-up claim.

Prem Nath Vs the State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10757 of 1993 Date of Decision : April 26, 2010.

Prem Nath

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.G.P.Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶15

The petitioner, who joined the Education Department, Government of Punjab as S.S.Master on 6.8.1970, sought and was granted voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.1992 (Annexure P-1). He has approached this Court with manifold grievances. Firstly, the petitioner is aggrieved at the recovery of Rs.26,450/- effected from his retiral benefits on the plea that a sum of Rs.23000/- was paid in excess to him towards Border House Rent Allowance and Rs.3450/- towards Compensatory Allowance. The second grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid salary for the months of March, 1992 to July, 1992; thirdly, he says that he was entitled to the proficiency step-up which was arbitrarily denied and

¶16

C.W.P.No .10757 of 1993 2

¶17

fourthly, the petitioner also claims interest on the aforesaid dues.

¶18

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit controverting the petitioner's claim.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records.

¶20

As regards the contention against the recovery, the respondents have nowhere averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner ever mis-represented the authorities, played any fraud or deceived them to get the Border House Rent Allowance and the Compensatory Allowance. Following the dictum in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333 , no recovery can be effected from the petitioner and consequently, the recovery order is set-aside and the respondents are directed to release the recovered payment of Rs.26,450/- to the petitioner. I am, however, of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the said amount for the reason that recovery order is quashed in the light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. It is accordingly directed that the aforesaid payment be made to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, failing which he shall be entitled to get the interest @ 7% per annum.

¶21

As regards the claim of the petitioner for proficiency step-up and/or non-payment of salary for the months from March, 1992 to July, 1992, it may be noticed that the respondents have controverted the petitioner's claim averring that the petitioner remained absent from duty

¶22

C.W.P.No .10757 of 1993 3

¶23

from March, 1992 to July, 1992. It, however, appears that the petitioner's claim for proficiency step-up was duly forwarded by the Headmaster of the School, but no final decision in relation thereto has been taken by the Competent Authority so far. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are accordingly directed to consider the petitioner's claim for proficiency step-up and increment(s) from the due date(s) within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner is found entitled to, the said increment(s) shall be released to him within the aforesaid stipulated period and in the event of rejection, let the respondents pass a speaking order within the aforesaid period.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

Dasti. April 26, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Prem Nath v. the State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nath v. the State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Jagjivan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhag Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishana Devi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Piyara Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rupinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.