Partly allowed

Shivinder Pal Singh Andors v. State Ofpunjab

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2011CWP/9336/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition, Justice Surya Kant allowed the petition in part, quashing orders that effected recovery from petitioners (Irrigation Department Engineers) after applying Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents holding such recovery impermissible. The court directed respondents to refund recovered amounts within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery orders quashed; refund of amounts recovered directed within three months.

Shivinder Pal Singh Andors Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.9336 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2011

¶4

¶5

Shivinder Pal Singh & Ors.

¶6

VS.

¶7

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. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶16

Mr. BS Chahal, DAG Punjab ****

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). The petitioners, who are retired/serving Executive Engineers/Assistant Design Engineers of Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab, seek quashing of the orders dated 07.03.2002 & 22.04.2002 (Annexures P9 & P10, respectively) vide which the benefit of proficiency step up granted to them had been withdrawn and their pay re-fixed. The petitioners have placed on record orders (Annexures P15 to P47) impugning the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from them.

¶19

(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 petitioners

¶20

2 –

¶21

CWP No.9336 of 2002.doc

¶22

misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s).

¶23

(3). Counsel for the petitioners confines his claim qua recovery only.

¶24

(4). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others,

¶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,

¶26

(2010) 1 SCC 440 , I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioners.

¶27

(5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned recovery order(s) (Annexure P15 to P47) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amounts already recovered from the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶28

(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶29

25.07.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

Shivinder Pal Singh Andors v. State Ofpunjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivinder Pal Singh Andors v. State Ofpunjab

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

Nafe Singh Vs State of Haryana

Baljit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balbir Singh Saini Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balraj Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ruldu Ram Mittal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.