Petitioners challenged salary deductions via writ, arguing lack of prior hearing and requesting refund of allegedly illegal deductions.
Impugned order set-aside; amount deducted ordered to be refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civl Writ Petition No.15353 of 1991 Date of Decision : September 14, 2011.
Suraj Bhan Arora and others ..... Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Ms.Loveleen Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents not to recover Rs.45/- per month and to refund the amount allegedly deducted from their salaries.
It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that SLP No.15517 of 1992, referred to in the order dated 19.7.1993 pertains to some other matter and has no bearing on the issue involved in this case. She further states that the point involved in this case stands answered in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 18.7.1988 passed in CWP No.966 of 1988 (Haryana College Teachers Association and others versus State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-1) against which the SLP has also already
CWP No.15353 of 1991 [2]
been dismissed. That apart, the writ petition deserves to be allowed for the reason that the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set-aside and the amount already deducted from the petitioners is ordered to be refunded to them. Respondent No.2 shall, however, be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if so required, while keeping in view the decision of this Court dated 18.7.1988 passed in Haryana College Teachers Association's case (supra).
Dasti.
September 14, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order recovering amounts from salaries was passed without an opportunity of hearing.
Whether the deducted amount should be refunded to the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haryana College Teachers Association and others versus State of Haryana and othersReferred¶12
CWP No.966 of 1988 (Haryana College Teachers Association and others versus State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-1))
Suraj Bhan Arora and others
The State of Haryana
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
