Partly allowed

Kashmir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2010CWP/10811/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of ACP/Proficiency Step benefits and consequential recovery. The Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the recovery order while upholding the re-fixation of pay and redirection of retirement benefits, relying on Kaur Chand and Budh Ram.

What did the court decide?

The action of ordering recovery of excess payments is quashed, but the order to re-fix pay and redetermine retirement benefits is upheld. Any recovery already made is to be refunded.

Kashmir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.10811 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.10811 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.04.2010

Kashmir Kaur

. . . . Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

Present: Mr. S.S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner

¶19

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step has been withdrawn and after reducing/re-fixing her pay, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.10811 of 2009.doc

¶25

(1). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counterreply/affidavit in which nowhere it is alleged that the petitioner misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s).

¶26

(2). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge qua ‘recovery’ only and submits that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No.697 of 2010 titled as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others , which was decided in the light of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh

¶27

Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the operative part whereof reads as under:-

¶28

“Following the dictum in Budh Ram’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed in part; the action of the respondents in ordering recovery of the excess payments received by the petitioner as a result of Stepping-up of his pay or grant of ACP is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of his pay and consequential redetermination of the retiral benefits are upheld. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

¶29

3 –

¶30

CWP No.10811 of 2009.doc

¶31

(3). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in

¶32

the above-reproduced terms.

¶33

(4). Dasti

¶34

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶35

21.04.2010

¶36

vishal shonkar

Kashmir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir Kaur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Avtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaswant Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Maghar Singh Vs State of Pb.and Ors.