Allowed

Santosh Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2010CWP/14751/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition challenging recovery notices issued for alleged incorrect pay fixation. The High Court relied on precedents to hold that recovery cannot proceed where no misrepresentation was involved and quashed the notices, directing refund of any recovered amount and release of retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Recovery notices dated 11.06.2009 and 26.8.2009 quashed; recovery refundable within three months; retiral benefits to be released.

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.14751 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.14751 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2010

Santosh Saini

. . . . Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab and others

¶11

. . . . . Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner

¶20

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶21

¶22

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶23

(1). The petitioner joined as Staff Nurse on 11.10.1973 with the respondent-Department and retired on 30.4.2009. She seeks quashing of the recovery sought to be effected vide orders dated 11.06.2009 and 26.8.2009 (Annexure P2 and P3) on account of the alleged wrong fixation of her pay. A further direction to release all her retiral benefits has also been sought.

¶24

2 –

¶25

CWP No.14751 of 2009.doc

¶26

(2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counterreply.

¶27

(3).

¶28

The petitioner’s main grievance is that no recovery can be effected even on account of wrong fixation of pay as she never mis-represented the facts or mislead the authorities while seeking such claim. The mistake, if any, is on the part of the departmental authorities which has now been detected and rectified by them.

¶29

(4).

¶30

Having gone through the pleadings, I am of the considered view that the recovery notice cannot sustain in law, as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (3) PLR 511 . Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the recovery notices dated 11.06.2009 and 26.8.2009 (Annexure P2 and P3) are hereby quashed. The recovery, if any, already made shall be refunded to the petitioner and all the retiral benefits shall be released to the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

3 –

¶32

CWP No.14751 of 2009.doc

¶33

(5). Dasti .

¶34

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶35

02.02.2010

¶36

vishal shonkar

Santosh Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Saini 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

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaskamaldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baldev Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakhshish Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjit Singh Randhawa Vs State of Punjab and Ors.