Partly allowed

Davinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2010CWP/17376/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed five connected Writ Petitions in part. Relying on Kaur Chand and Budh Ram precedents, it quashed the recovery of excess payments due to incremented pay but upheld the re-fixation of pay and consequential re-determination of retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Action of recovery of excess payments due to stepping-up of pay was quashed; re-fixation of pay was upheld; refund of amounts already recovered within four months.

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.17376 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.17376 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.04.2010

¶6

¶7

Dr. Davinder Pal Singh . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

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. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

¶18

Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. AG Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.17376, 17375, 17625, 17617 & 17964 of 2009 as the petitioners herein have common grievances. The petitioners impugn the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of increments/ACP/Proficiency Step has been withdrawn and after reducing/re-fixing their pay, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.

¶22

(1). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners have restricted their challenge qua ‘recovery’ only and submit that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.17376 of 2009.doc

¶25

No.697 of 2010 titled as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others , which was decided in the light of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in

¶26

Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others,

¶27

2009(3) PLR 511 and the operative part whereof reads as

¶28

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

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

¶32

(1). Dasti .

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶34

08.04.2010

¶35

vishal shonkar

Davinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davinder 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satpal Kochhar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jiwan Asha Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jai Parkash & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.