Partly allowed

Sukhvinder Singh Kalsi v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2010CWP/13447/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the order for recovery of consequential pay reduction imposed due to promotion. The re-fixation of pay was upheld. Recovery already made must be refunded within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery orders quashed; re-fixation of pay upheld; recovery already made to be refunded within three months.

Sukhvinder Singh Kalsi Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.13447 of 2009.doc

¶2

1 –

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.13447 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.02.2010

¶6

¶7

Sukhvinder Singh Kalsi . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶18

*****

¶19

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶20

(1). The petitioner impugns the orders dated 15.12.208, (Annexure P5); 21.05.2009 (Annexure P8); 27.05.2009 (Annexure P9) and 14.07.2009 (Annexure P10), whereby, his pay has been reduced and re-fixed and consequential recovery has been ordered, after withdrawing the benefit of two increments granted to him on attaining the qualification of BE (Civil). (2). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he confines his challenge to the recovery order only. He relies

¶21

CWP No.13447 of 2009.doc

¶22

2 –

¶23

upon the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2799 of 2008

¶24

decided on 22.05.2009 and urges that in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner, by the respondents as the petitioner never misled the Authorities to gain any service benefit or concealed the material facts. (3). Learned State counsel also does not dispute the factual plea taken by the petitioner.

¶25

(4). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned orders to the extent of ordering recovery from the petitioner, are hereby quashed. The re-fixation of the pay etc. is upheld. The recovery, if any, already made be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

(5). Ordered accordingly.

¶27

(6). Dasti .

¶28

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶29

08.2.2010

¶30

vishal shonkar

Sukhvinder Singh Kalsi v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhvinder Singh Kalsi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Charanjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Pb.and Others

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Singh Sidhu Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.