Allowed

Malkiat Singh v. Pseb etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012CWP/16582/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition and quashed the respondent's order attempting to recover a salary excess after retirement. Citing a Full Bench decision, the court held recovery is impermissible absent fraud unless it is a clerical mistake.

What did the court decide?

The recovery ordered is quashed and the amount recovered, if any, is to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks with interest at 7.5%.

Malkiat Singh Vs Pseb etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.16582 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.01.2012

¶3

Malkiat Singh son of Shri Ajaib Singh, resident of VPO Noorpur Bet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary, and others.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Present: Mr. B.N. Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

None for the respondents.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶14

----

¶15

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶16

There is no representation for the respondents. The only point urged by the petitioner is that after retirement, the respondents were attempting to make a recovery of Rs.31,153/- from the petitioner from his salary on account of alleged excess payment made during his employment. In the reply, it is stated that the benefit of promotion increment could have been granted to an employee on completion of 23 years of service if only he or she had

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.16582 of 2004 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

not earned 3 regular promotions in service from the date of joining or has not earned 3 promotions between 16^th and 23^rd year of service. If a promotion increment had been wrongly given so long as it is not on account of any fraud of misrepresentation or so long as excess payment has not been made due to clerical mistake, there is no scope for a recovery in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others-2009(3) PLR 511 . The writ petition is allowed and the recovery ordered is quashed. If the amount has been recovered already, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount recovered shall also bear interest at 7.5% from today.

¶19

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE 16.01.2012 sanjeev

Malkiat Singh v. Pseb etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkiat Singh v. Pseb etc.

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

Balli Singh Vs F.C.Hry.Etc.

Hari Ram Vs Secy.to Govt.Hry.Etc.

Bhajan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Lal Vs H.S.E.B. etc.

Mansa Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.