Allowed

Bakhshish Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2010CWP/17553/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed a recovery order that reduced the petitioner's pay retrospectively after retirement and sought recovery of Rs.1.37 lakhs from her retiral benefits. Relying on a Full Bench decision, the court held that the recovery order could not stand as the petitioner did not mislead authorities regarding the pay fixation.

What did the court decide?

The recovery order dated 30.04.2009 is quashed; recovery, if made, shall be refunded and all retiral benefits released within three months.

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.17553 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.17553 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2010

Bakhshish Kaur

. . . . Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab and Others

¶11

. . . . . Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶14

****

¶15

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 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.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner

¶19

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition is to the order dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the respondents, whereby, the petitioner’s pay has been reduced with retrospective effect after her retirement on 31.05.2009 and consequential recovery of Rs.1,37,969/- from her retiral benefits has been ordered.

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.17553 of 2009.doc

¶25

(2).

¶26

(3).

¶27

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he confines his challenge to the recovery order dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure P1) only. He relies upon a decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009 and urges that in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances, no recovery can be allowed to be effected as the petitioner never mis-represented the facts nor mislead the authorities while seeking fixation of her pay. The mistake, if any, is on the part of the departmental authorities which has now been detected and rectified.

¶28

After going through the pleadings, I find that the recovery notice cannot sustain as ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram’s case (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the recovery order dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure P1) is hereby quashed. The recovery, if any, already made shall be refunded to the petitioner and all the retiral benefits shall be released to the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period

¶29

3 –

¶30

CWP No.17553 of 2009.doc

¶31

of three months from the date of receipt of certified

¶32

copy of this order.

¶33

(4). Ordered accordingly.

¶34

(5). Dasti

¶35

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶36

02.02.2010

¶37

vishal shonkar

Bakhshish Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakhshish Kaur 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

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaskamaldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baldev Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Santosh Saini Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjit Singh Randhawa Vs State of Punjab and Ors.