Allowed

Pohla Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2011CWP/12638/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Sub Divisional Magistrate filed a Writ Petition challenging an order postponing his Proficiency Step-up and withdrawing ACP benefits, leading to recovery. The Court quashed the recovery aspect, relying on a Full Bench decision regarding lack of fraud, and directed re-consideration of the pay fixation claim.

What did the court decide?

The recovery order quashed; direction to release withheld amount within two months and to re-consider pay fixation claim within four months.

Pohla Singh 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.12638 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.09.2011

Pohla Singh

VS.

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶8

. . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. AK Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶13

¶14

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶15

(1). The petitioner retired from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar as a Senior Assistant w.e.f. 30.11.2008. The impugned order dated 05.08.2009 (Annexure P6) has been passed after his retirement postponing the date of grant of Proficiency Step-up on completion of 16 years’ service and consequently, the benefit of ACP has been withdrawn resulting into an order of recovery as well.

¶16

(2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s pay was earlier inadvertently fixed overlooking the clarification contained in the Government letter dated 01.09.1989 (Annexure R2). The petitioner on the other hand relies upon the Government Circular dated 10.03.1997.

¶17

(3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record.

¶18

CWP No.12638 of 2009.doc

¶19

¶20

(4). Since the respondents have nowhere averred that the petitioner misled the authorities or played fraud while getting the favourable pay fixation, the impugned order (Annexure P6) to the extent of recovery is liable to be quashed as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2009(3) PLR 511 . The order under challenge to the extent of recovery is accordingly quashed and the amount, if any withheld, is directed to be released to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

(5). As regards pay fixation on grant of Proficiency Step-up/ACP, the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar Mohali is directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in consultation with the Chief Accounts Officer and/or any other Officer from the Finance Department and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶22

(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶23

16.09.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

¶24

Pohla Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pohla 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

Siri Paul and Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jasvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pritam Singh Vs State of Pb.

Amarjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab through Chief Secretay

S.S.Bawa Vs State of Punjab etc.