Allowed

M.L.Aggarwal & O Rs. v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2011CWP/9493/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab High Court quashed orders re-fixing pension and directing recovery from retired Irrigation Department officers. Relying on recent precedents, the court held no recovery is permissible and ordered refund of amounts already taken.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery orders quashed; respondents directed to refund any recovered amounts within three months.

M.L.Aggarwal & O Rs. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.9493 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.08.2011

ML Aggarwal & Ors.

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? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. GS Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioners

¶15

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶16

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). The petitioners are the retired Officers of the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab. They seek quashing of the orders dated 05.12.2003, 15.12.2003, 18.03.2004, 08.01.2004, 20.01.2004, 25.05.2004 (Annexure P11, P13, P15, P16, P18, P19, P20 respectively) whereby their pension was re-fixed and consequential recovery was sought to be effected.

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

¶20

2 –

¶21

CWP No.9493 of 2004.doc

¶22

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioners now confine their claim qua recovery only.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶26

01.08.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

M.L.Aggarwal & O Rs. v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.L.Aggarwal & O Rs. v. State of Pb. & 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

Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jeet Ram and Ors. Vs the State of Punjab through the Commissioner and Ors.

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

Mohan Singh Vs Sub Divisional Canal Officer and Ors.

Jugwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Balwinder Singh Tiwana and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.