Disposed

Kulmohan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2010CWP/3226/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition regarding retirement benefits. It directed the release of remaining benefits after deducting admitted dues of Rs.25,020/- within three months, considering the petitioner had admitted embezzlement and ceased requiring a formal enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Release of remaining retirement benefits after deducting Rs.25,020/- within three months, subject to conditions regarding pending related writ petition.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.3226 of 2007 Date of Decision : February 15, 2010.

Kulmohan Singh

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.D.K.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

¶11

-.-

¶12

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

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶17

The respondents have filed an additional affidavit of Narinder Pal Singh, Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division no.2, Ludhiana, which is taken on record.

¶18

As per the averments made therein, the petitioner himself has admitted the alleged embezzlement and has already deposited Rs.16,640/with the Sub Divisional Engineer No.1, Malerkotla vide S.T.R.No.12/38438 dated 8.5.1995. It is further averred that the petitioner has also requested in writing to deduct the balance amount of Rs.25,020/from his retiral dues. On this premise, it is averred that since the petitioner

¶19

C.W.P.No .3226 of 2007 2

¶20

has admitted his liabilities, there is no necessity to hold a regular enquiry.

¶21

The afore-stated plea taken by the respondents is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

In this view of the matter and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service voluntarily on 30.6.2005, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that after deducting the amount of Rs.25,020/- rest of the retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be released to him within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, if there is no stay against the recovery in CWP No.16799 of 2005 in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall also be entitled to deduct/with-held Rs.30,768/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner while rest of the benefits shall be released subject to the final outcome of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In case there is an interim stay in the afore-mentioned writ petition, the petitioner's retiral benefits shall be released after deducting the amount of Rs.25,020/- only though without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to recover the other alleged dues in case the petitioner does not finally succeed in the aforesaid pending writ petition.

Disposed of.

Dasti.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

15-02-2010 Mohinder

Kulmohan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulmohan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekh Raj & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Beant Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Mohinder Kaur

Baldev Singh Virk Vs State of Punjab and Others

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.