Allowed

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2011CWP/13907/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired health supervisor, challenged an order for recovery of money from his leave encashment. The court relied on precedent to hold no recovery was permissible and quashed the impugned order, directing refund if any amount was taken.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 23.06.2010 directing recovery; directed respondents to refund any recovered amount within three months.

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.13907 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2011

Gurmail Singh

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

. . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab

¶17

¶18

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶19

(1). The petitioner retired as Multipurpose Health Supervisor from the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Punjab. He seeks quashing of the order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P2) ordering recovery of Rs.66720/- from his leave encashment on account of wrong fixation of pay.

¶20

(2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit. It is 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). It is true that the petitioner consented in writing to permit

¶21

2 –

¶22

CWP No.13907 of 2010.doc

¶23

the respondents to effect recovery but the said consent cannot take away the right conferred upon the affected employees/ similarly placed by the decision of the Full Bench in Budh Ram’s case (infra). (3). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in 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.

¶24

(4). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P2) 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.

¶25

(5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶26

06.07.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmail 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

Babli and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Malkiat Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Satpal Aggarwal etc. Vs State Ofpb.Etc.

Deepak Kumar Vashisht Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others