Partly allowed

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2010CWP/17188/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired pharmacist challenged recovery from his death-cum-retirement gratuity following re-fixation of pay. The Court held that recovery must be annulled per Full Bench principles, set aside the notice, and directed refund of any recovered amount within three months while upholding pay re-fixation.

What did the court decide?

Recovery annulled, notice set aside, refund ordered within 3 months if recovery already effected.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.17188 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 04, 2010.

¶3

Balwinder Singh ..... Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others

¶6

..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶8

Present : Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner, who is a retired Pharmacist, is aggrieved at the recovery of an amount of Rs.95,373/- sought to be recovered from his death-cum-retirement gratuity after re-fixation of his pay.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his claim qua recovery only and has no objection against the re-fixation of his pay or the proficiency step up.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶18

records.

¶19

The petitioner cannot be said to have misled the authorities

¶20

C.W.P.No .17188 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶21

and/or concealed the material facts for monetary gains. The recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, is liable to be annulled in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. While refixation of the petitioner's pay or the proficiency step-up is up-held, however, the consequential recovery notice is hereby set-aside. It is further directed that in case the respondents have already effected any recovery from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

04-02-2010

Mohinder

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Prem Lata & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Harjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Karnail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surat Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.