Allowed

Pushpa Devi v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2011CWP/2483/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of recovery orders for excess pension fixed after a prior writ petition determined her pay. The court held the original pay fixation was based on a previous court ruling, not fraud, and applied a Full Bench decision to quash the recovery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery orders dated 16.10.2004 are quashed; any recovery made is to be refunded within four months.

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.2483/2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.2483/2011 Date of decision:10.2.2011.

¶4

Pushpa Devi

¶5

.............Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State of Punjab and another ..............Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶9

Present:- Ms.Monica Goyal,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶11

Petitioner is a retired Social Studies Mistress w.e.f. 1.4.2007 from Education Department, Government of Punjab. She is aggrieved against the refixation of her salary/pension after withdrawal of increments and order of recovery of excess amounts paid vide impugned order dated 16.10.2004 (P3) due to purportedly wrong grant of increments.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Social Studies Mistress with effect from 18.5.1976. At that time she was M.A.B.Ed. Under the Government instructions dated 23.7.1957, she being MA 2^nd Class was entitled to three advance increments and accordingly was granted the same. At the time of fixation of her pay on 1.1.1978 consequent upon the revision of grades in the wake of report of the Second Pay Commission, petitioner's juniors started

¶13

CWP No.2483/2011 2

¶14

getting higher pay than her, thus creating an anomalous situation. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No.9943 of 1989 which was decided on 1.3.1995 in her favour. Ultimately, vide order dated 23.5.1996 (P1) pay of the petitioner was stepped up equal to one being drawn by other masters and mistresses immediately junior to her and she was also held entitled to arrears of pay for a period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

¶15

It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter Department of Education, Government of Punjab issued instructions dated 1.7.2004 constituting a Committee to check the wrong fixation of pay in pursuance of Civil Writ Petition NO.17005 of 1989 titled as Shri Rawail Singh v. State of Punjab . It appears that the Committee so constituted checked the service book of the petitioner and found that her pay had been fixed wrongly. Accordingly she was issued show cause notice dated 11.10.2004 (P2) and after granting her an opportunity of being heard, a recovery of Rs.2,34,862/- was made from her Death-cum-Retiral Gratuity as the petitioner stood retired on 1.4.2007. Hence the present writ petition.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pay of the petitioner could not be re-fixed and recovery ordered as the pay of the petitioner had been refixed in the light of the Judgment of this Court in CWP No.9943 of 1989, and fixation of her pay was not based on any mis-statement or suppression of facts/fraud.

¶17

CWP No.2483/2011 3

¶18

Notice of motion.

¶19

At the asking of the Court, Ms.Charu Tuli,Sr.DAG accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶20

So far as challenge to the re-fixation of pay of the petitioner and consequent recovery is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy is squarely answered in favour of the petitioner by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana and others 2009(3) PLR 511. It is also not denied that pursuant to the order dated 1.3.1995 passed by this Court in CWP No.9943 of 1989 filed by the petitioner, respondents vide order dated 23.5.1996(P1) stepped up pay of the petitioner equal to one being drawn by other masters and mistresses immediately junior to her and she was also granted arrears of pay for a period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. It is thus clear that pay of the petitioner was fixed by the respondents in the light of decision of this Court in CWP No.9943 of 1989 and not on the basis of any mis-statement or suppression of facts/fraud committed by the petitioner.

¶21

Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, in my considered opinion, the decision in Budh Ram's case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the recovery orders are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any effected, from the petitioner shall be refunded

¶22

CWP No.2483/2011 4

¶23

preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

¶24

10.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

Pushpa Devi v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Kaur Vs Pritpal Singh

Rakhi Dhawan Vs Satyawati & Ors.

Roshni Devi Vs G.K.Pillai, IAS and Ors.

Paramjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Renu Chaudhary Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.