Partly allowed

Charanjit Kaur and Others v. State of Pb.and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2010CWP/20178/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab High Court allowed the writ petition in part, upholding pay refixation with step-up but quashing consequential recovery notices absent proof of misleading authorities or concealed facts, mandating refund if already collected.

What did the court decide?

Consequential recovery notice set-aside; refund ordered within three months if recovery already effected.

Charanjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Pb.and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.20178 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 05, 2010.

¶3

Charanjit Kaur and others ..... Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others

¶6

..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶8

Present : Mr.O.P.Gaba, Advocate, for the petitioners. 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 petitioners are retired and serving Junior Assistants in the Irrigation Department, Punjab. They seek quashing of the orders dated 29.11.2005/26.12.2005 (Annexure P-3) and 4.1.2006 (Annexure P-4), whereby their pay scales have been reduced after withdrawing the proficiency step-up and consequential recovery has been ordered to be effected.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit.

¶17

C.W.P.No .20178 of 2006 (O&M) 2

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners confines their claim qua recovery only and has no objection against the re-fixation of their pay or the proficiency step up.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶20

The respondents have nowhere averred that the petitioners ever misled the authorities and/or concealed the material facts for monetary gains. The recovery sought to be effected from the petitioners, 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

¶21

Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. While refixation of the petitioners 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 petitioners, 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.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

05-02-2010

Mohinder

Charanjit Kaur and Others v. State of Pb.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Kaur and Others v. State of Pb.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Surinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gursharan Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab & Ors.