Partly allowed

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2011CWP/15134/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Sr. Clerk, challenged a recovery order for Rs.31,356 due to wrongful pay fixation. Court relied on precedents to hold that recovery is unwarranted absent fraud. Writ partially allowed; recovery quashed; refund ordered if any amount was recovered. Respondents advised option to seek review if fraud later found.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order dated 09.06.2011 quashed; direction to refund amount recovered within three months if any.

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.15134 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.09.2011

Gurdeep Singh

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?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶17

¶18

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶19

(1). The petitioner, who is working as Sr. Clerk in the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab, seeks quashing of the order dated 09.06.2011 (Annexure P1) ordering recovery of Rs.31356/- from him on account of wrong fixation of pay.

¶20

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner, while confining his claim qua recovery only, states that the petitioner has never misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s).

¶21

(3). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in

¶22

Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others,

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.15134 of 2011.doc

¶25

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.

¶26

(4). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the recovery order dated 09.06.2011 (Annexure P1) is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount 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.

¶27

(5).

¶28

Since the respondents have not filed any counterreply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶30

22.09.2011 vishal shonkar

¶31

(S u r y a K a n t) Judge

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Raksha Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakhsish Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rs Virk Vs State of Punjab & Ors.