Allowed

Jai Pal v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2010CWP/16421/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition regarding the withdrawal of ACP/Proficiency Step benefits and associated pay reduction, applying parameters from a prior Full Bench decision quashing recovery while upholding pay re-fixation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; recovery action quashed; impugned orders of pay re-fixation and retirement benefits upheld; recovery already made to be refunded within four months.

Jai Pal Vs State of Pb. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.16421 of 2003.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.16421 of 2003 Date of Decision: 01.04.2010

Jai Pal

VS.

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?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶19

*****

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

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Petition, the petitioner impugns the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step has been withdrawn after reducing/re-fixing his pay, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.

¶22

(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 2010 titled

¶23

as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others ,

¶24

2 –

¶25

CWP No.16421 of 2003.doc

¶26

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

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.”

¶30

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

¶31

(2). Dasti .

¶32

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶33

01.04.2010

¶34

vishal shonkar

Jai Pal v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Pal v. State of Pb.

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.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Narinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.