Disposed

Pritam Singh v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2011CWP/19043/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition dealt with claims for release of pension, proficiency step-up, quashing of a 20% pension cut, and correction of annual increment date. The court ordered release of dues with interest, declined step-up, allowed a review on the pension cut, and directed reconsideration of the increment date.

What did the court decide?

Release of retiral benefits with interest; review application permitted on pension cut; reconsideration of annual increment date; proficiency step-up claim declined.

Pritam Singh Vs State of Pb. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.19043 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.09.2011

Pritam Singh

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

. . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶13

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ****

¶14

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶15

(1). The petitioner has claimed several reliefs in this writ petition like (i) the release of retiral benefits including Commutation of Pension and full pension along with interest; (ii) Proficiency Step-up w.e.f. 01.07.1994 on completion of 8 years’ service; (iii) quashing of the order dated 09.02.1999 (Annexure P5) whereby a cut of 20% on the pension, as a measure of penalty, has been imposed; and (iv) for carrying out correction for the date of annual increment from July to January for the year 1997.

¶16

(2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit opposing the afore-mentioned claims, to which the petitioner has also filed his replication.

¶17

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

¶18

CWP No.19043 of 2001.doc

¶19

¶20

(i) Release of Pension

¶21

(4). As regards the release of full retiral dues to the petitioner save the 20% cut imposed on his pension, the same were required to be paid to the petitioner timely and if any payment is still due, the respondents are directed to re-verify the petitioner’s claim and release such amount along with interest @ 7% per annum. In case the respondents are of the view that everything has already been paid, a speaking order to this effect shall be passed and conveyed to the petitioner.

¶22

(ii) Proficiency Step-up

¶23

(5). So far as the Proficiency Step-up from 01.07.1994 is concerned there can indeed be no quarrel that such a benefit is admissible on the basis of “satisfactory regular service”. The petitioner was admittedly charge-sheeted for the lapses said to have been committed by him in the year 1992-95. He was held guilty and appropriate punishment was imposed on him. That being so, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to Proficiency Step-up w.e.f. 01.07.1994. This relief is accordingly declined.

¶24

(iii) Cut on pension

¶25

(6). The petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 09.02.1999 (Annexure P5) imposing cut of 20% on pension calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction for

¶26

¶27

CWP No.19043 of 2001.doc

¶28

¶29

the reason that the charge-sheet (Annexure P2) highlights not one but several irregularities caused due to inefficiency, negligence and incompetence of the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s contention that the cut on pension should not have been imposed forever requires serious re-consideration as such a punishment is invariably imposed for a specified period. The plea regarding award of disproportionate punishment to the petitioner can be effectively gone into by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner is accordingly permitted to file a review application under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Reviewing Authority is directed to dispose of the said application on merits for the reason that no delay can be attributed to the petitioner who has been pursuing his remedy before this Court.

¶30

(iv) Annual Increment

¶31

(7). Coming to the last relief sought by the petitioner, namely, preponing the date of annual increment for the year 1997 from July to January, reliance is placed upon memo dated 11.05.1998 (Annexure P8) which reads as follows:-

¶32

¶33

CWP No.19043 of 2001.doc

¶34

¶35

“The Annual Grade Increment of the following employees/officers is fixed in accordance with the dates shown against their names:

¶36

Sr.	Name of	Code	Pay	Date of	Basic pay
No .	employee		scale	annual increment	after increment
1.	Pritam	II	7220-	1.1.1996	8925/-
	Singh Asstt.	(547)	11660
	Controller

¶37

In accordance with the above, the pay of the employees/officers be prepared in accordance with the revised pay.”

¶38

(8).

¶39

From the contents of the above-reproduced letter, it does appear that the date of annual increment of the petitioner is 1^st January. That being so, the respondents are obligated to re-consider the petitioner’s claim regarding correction in the date of annual increment for the year 1997 from July to January. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner’s request for preponing the date of annual increment for the year 1997 shall be re-considered in the light of the order dated 11.05.1998 (Annexure P8), and an appropriate order to this effect shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner’s request/plea is accepted, the consequential action shall follow.

¶40

¶41

CWP No.19043 of 2001.doc

¶42

¶43

(9). With these observations, directions and liberties, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶44

(10). Dasti .

¶45

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

¶46

Pritam Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.

Pohla Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab through Chief Secretay

S.S.Bawa Vs State of Punjab etc.