Allowed

S.K.Singla v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jul 2011CWP/11464/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition partly and quashed the recovery order from the petitioner's gratuity. It held that no recovery can be effected since the respondents did not aver fraud by the petitioner, applying precedents Budh Ram and Registrar Cooperative Societies.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order dated 10.03.2003 is quashed. Respondents directed to refund amounts within three months.

S.K.Singla Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.11464 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.07.2011

SK Singla

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. GS Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner

¶15

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab

¶16

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). The pay of the petitioner, who retired as a Superintending Engineer from the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab, has been re-fixed vide order dated 18.12.2002 (Annexure P6) on account of withdrawal of the benefit of bunching increments which consequently led to the passing of the another order dated 10.03.2003 (Annexure P8) whereby recovery to the tune of Rs.1,35,636/- has been ordered to be effected from his Gratuity. The aggrieved petitioner seeks quashing of both the above-stated orders (Annexures P6 & P8).

¶19

(2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit. It is

¶20

2 –

¶21

CWP No.11464 of 2008.doc

¶22

(3).

¶23

nowhere averred by the respondents that the petitioner misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in

¶24

Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 as well as the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440 , I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner.

¶25

(4). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned recovery order dated 10.03.2003 (Annexure P8) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amounts if any already recovered from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

(5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶27

12.07.2011

¶28

vishal shonkar

¶29

(SURYA KANT) Judge

S.K.Singla v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Singla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh Kalsi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

R.S.Virk Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Parveen Kumar Gandhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Sharda Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raghbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Jaspinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.