Allowed

Subhash Chander Syal v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Apr 2010CWP/19181/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions concerning the withdrawal of ACP/Proficiency Step benefits and subsequent recovery. The order followed parameters from a Full Bench decision in Budh Ram case via a referenced judgment, allowing the writ in part by quashing recovery while upholding re-fixation of pay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part; recovery of excess payments is quashed to be refunded within four months; re-fixation of pay upheld.

Subhash Chander Syal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.19181 of 2004.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.19181 of 2004 Date of Decision: 05.04.2010

Subhash Chander Syal

VS.

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? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶20

(1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.19181 of 2004 & 13392 of 2007 as common issues are involved for adjudication in both cases. In these writ petitions, the petitioners impugn the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step has been withdrawn and after reducing/re-fixing their pay, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.

¶21

(2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counterreply/affidavit in which nowhere it is alleged that the petitioners misled the authorities or played any fraud

¶22

2 –

¶23

CWP No.19181 of 2004.doc

¶24

or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s).

¶25

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

¶26

State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and

¶27

the operative part whereof reads as under:-

¶28

“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.”

¶29

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

¶30

(2). Dasti .

¶31

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶32

05.04.2010

¶33