Partly allowed

Narinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2010CWP/15302/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of ACP benefit and recovery actions. The court allowed the petition in part, citing Kaur Chand case based on Budh Ram precedent, quashing recovery of excess pay but upholding re-fixation of pay and consequential retirement benefit determinations, requiring refund of any recovery made within four months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of recovery order for excess ACP pay payment; refund of any money recovered within four months; upholding of order for re-fixation of pay and consequential retirement benefits determinations.

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.15302 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.15302 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.04.2010

Narinder Pal Singh

. . . . 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. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner

¶19

Mr. B.S. Chahal, 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Petition, the petitioner impugns the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step has been withdrawn after reducing/re-fixing his pay, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.

¶23

(2). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his 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

¶24

2010 titled as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others , which was decided in the light of the parameters

¶25

2 –

¶26

CWP No.15302 of 2009.doc

¶27

laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR

¶28

511 and the operative part whereof reads as under:-

¶29

“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 re-determination 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.

¶30

Since the respondents have not filed any counterreply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

¶31

(1). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in the above-reproduced terms.

¶32

(2). Dasti .

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶34

01.04.2010

¶35

vishal shonkar

Narinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Pal Singh 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

Jasmer Singh Vs State of Pb.

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jai Pal Vs State of Pb.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Keshwa Nand and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.