The petition was disposed of by applying the order in an earlier case (Amarjit Singh) which relegated the petitioner to a Departmental Committee for deciding seniority and proficiency claims. Recovery orders were quashed based on a Full Bench decision in Budh Ram.
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 AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.10990 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 18, 2010
SMT. SNEH LATA
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
Civil Writ Petition No.10990 of 2009
2
extracted:-
“So far as challenge to the recovery is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy is squarely answered in favour of the petitioners by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors. 2009[3] PLR, 511 . Consequently, the recovery orders are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, effected from the petitioners, shall be refunded preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
Adverting to the contention that the petitioners were rightly granted the benefit of proficiency step-up or their seniority was accordingly fixed, in my considered view, their respective claims can not be decided in isolation without hearing the other effected persons and/or ascertaining the correct facts from the record. Such an exercise can be effectively undertaken by a Departmental Committee as well. Accordingly, it is directed that let there be a Department Committee to be headed by an officer not below the rank of the Special/Additional or Joint Secretary of the Health Department along with two other officers, one of whom shall be from the Directorate of Health Services, Punjab, who shall consider the respective claims of the petitioners and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
Suffice it to say that in case the Committee accepts the petitioners' claim, the benefits earlier granted to them shall be restored and consequential arrears and/or revised retiral benefits shall be paid. However, till the Committee takes an appropriate decision, the retiral benefits shall be released, if already not released, as per the revised pay but without
Civil Writ Petition No.10990 of 2009
3
prejudice to the petitioners' claim to be decided by the Committee.
Disposed of. Dasti .”
been extracted above.
August 18, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶4
CWP No.18754 of 2007
Budh Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors.Explained¶20
Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors. 2009[3] PLR, 511
Smt. Sneh Lata
State of Punjab
Ajai Lamba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
