Partly allowed

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2010CWP/2937/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired driver, applied for quashing of orders adverse to his pay. The petition was allowed in part based on a prior decision in CWP No.5568 of 2008, directing pay re-fixation and refund of illegal deductions.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs granted in terms of the decision in CWP No.5568of2008; retiral benefits to be released; illegal deductions to be refunded.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.2937 of 2007 Date of Decision : April 09, 2010.

Pritam Singh

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶15

The petitioner was working as a Driver under respondent No.3, and he has retired on 31.01.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. He seeks quashing of the orders dated 26.4.2006 (Annexure P-6) and 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-8), whereby his pay has been adversely refixed and consequential recovery of Rs.1,00,500/- is sought to be effected from him.

¶16

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by a decision dated 27.5.2009 rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.5568 of 2008 (Charan Dass and others

¶17

C.W.P.No .2937 of 2007 2

¶18

versus State of Punjab and others), the concluding para whereof reads as

¶19

follows:-

¶20

“In view of the above, the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently, the pay of the petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two months. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits of the salary of the petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period.”

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part in terms of the

¶22

afore-stated decision of this Court in CWP No.5568 of 2008 (Charan

¶23

Dass and others versus State of Punjab and others).

¶24

Dasti.

¶25

April 09, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Sant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kans Raj and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.