Allowed

Gajje Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2012CWP/1957/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the recovery order regarding salary arrears. Relying on cited precedents, the court held recovery is barred as the petitioner never misrepresented facts. An order for refund with review rights was issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order quashed; directed to refund amount if recovered within three months; review allowed in six months.

Gajje Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.1957 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2012

Gajje Singh

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?

¶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. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶17

¶18

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶19

(1). Notice of motion. Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their reply(ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage.

¶20

(2). The petitioner who retired as SS Master from the Education Department, Punjab is aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby his pay has been refixed after granting the pay-scale of Rs.1800-3200/- w.e.f. 01.10.1988 instead of 01.01.1986 and consequential recovery of Rs.51,658/- is sought to be effected.

¶21

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has never misled the authorities or played any

¶22

2 –

¶23

CWP No.1957 of 2012.doc

¶24

fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). He further states that the petitioner does not challenge the re-fixation of his pay and restricts his claim against recovery only.

¶25

(4).

¶26

Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in

¶27

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 petitioner.

¶28

(5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the recovery order(s) is/are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount if any already recovered from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Since the respondents have not filed any counterreply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

(7).

¶30

Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶31

3 –

¶32

CWP No.1957 of 2012.doc

¶33

02.02.2012 vishal shonkar

¶34

(SURYA KANT) Judge

Gajje Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajje Singh v. State of Punjab and 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

Satpal Singh Vs Balwant Kaur

Jagdev Singh Vs Balwant Kaur

Hira Lal and Ors. Vs Samir Mathur and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh Randhawa, Ssp., Faridkot

Shivani Batra Vs Sachin Batra

Veer Pal Kaur Vs J.P. Singh Director