Partly allowed

Surat Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2010CWP/17189/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a recovery notice demanding Rs.83,737/- from the petitioner's gratuity after re-fixation of pay. While upholding the pay re-fixation, the court set aside the consequential recovery order, directing refund if already made within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; recovery notice set-aside; respondents directed to refund recovered amount within 3 months if already effected.

Surat Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.17189 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 04, 2010.

¶3

Surat 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.83,737/- 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 .17189 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

Surat Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surat 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

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.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.