Partly allowed

Sant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2010CWP/8626/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Civil Writ Petition in part, quashing the recovery of excess payments awarded via a Pay Step/ACP grant ordered by a Full Bench, while upholding the re-fixation of pay and retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

The action of respondents in ordering recovery of excess payments is quashed; re-fixation of pay and consequential retirement benefits are upheld; completed recovery refunded.

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.8626 of 2005.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.8626 of 2005 Date of Decision: 09.04.2010

Sant Singh

. . . . 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. Arvind Kashyap, 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Petition, the petitioner impugns the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step has been withdrawn and after reducing/re-fixing his pay, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.

¶23

(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 misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s).

¶24

2 –

¶25

CWP No.8626 of 2005.doc

¶26

(3).

¶27

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his 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

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

¶31

(2). Dasti .

¶32

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶33

09.04.2010

¶34

vishal shonkar

Sant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant 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

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.

Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

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

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.