Partly allowed

Balwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2010CWP/17891/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, widow of deceased employee, challenged withdrawal of her husband's ACP benefit and consequential family pension recovery. Court allowed writ petition in part, quashing recovery order based on reliance on Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and Full Bench decision in Budh Ram vs. State of Haryana, while upholding pay re-fixation.

What did the court decide?

Action of respondents ordering recovery of excess payments due to Stepping-up of pay is quashed. Impugned orders to extent of re-fixation of pay are upheld. Recovery, if any, already made to be refund

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.17891 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.17891 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.04.2010

****

Mrs. Balwinder Kaur

. . . . Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶19

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner – widow of a deceased employee, impugns the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step granted to her husband, has been withdrawn and after reducing/re-fixing her family pension, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.17891 of 2009.doc

¶25

(2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counterreply/affidavit in which nowhere it is alleged that the petitioner’s husband misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s).

¶26

(3).

¶27

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge qua ‘recovery’ only and submits that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.03.2010 passed in

¶28

CWP 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 Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the operative part whereof reads as 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

3 –

¶31

CWP No.17891 of 2009.doc

¶32

(4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in the

¶33

above-reproduced terms.

¶34

(1). Dasti

¶35

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶36

22.04.2010

¶37

vishal shonkar

Balwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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 and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kashmir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Hari Om Arora Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Davinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dev Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors.