Dismissed

Food and Supply Deptt. Class IV Employees v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2012CWP/2685/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition allowing a temporary order to become permanent, holding that recovery of already given proficiency step up was not permissible absent fraud or clerical mistake, while rejecting the claim to count adhoc service due to existing government instructions.

What did the court decide?

Temporary order staying recovery was made permanent; petition dismissed on other grounds.

Food and Supply Deptt. Class IV… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 2685 of 1992

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 2685 of 1992 Date of decision May 2, 2012

¶5

Food and Supplies Depatment and others

¶6

....... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Punjab and another

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate and Mr. Jagdev Singh for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. S. S. Sahu, AAG., Punjab. ****

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the reporters or not? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No

¶16

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶17

The petition is filed by the employees Union and the President and Secretary by their names. The decision of the respondent to count only the regular service for proficiency step up and discard the number of years of adhoc service that the employee who had drawn the proficiency step up on completion of 8/18 years of service in terms of the memo issued on 8/14.2.1991 came to harm by attempted recovery by the respondent for the proficiency step up already given to them including the period of adhoc service.

¶18

By an interim order of the Court it appears that recovery was stayed. I would allow a temporary order to be made permanent in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench in Budh Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2008 (3) PLR 511 that any payment which is made

¶19

¶20

CWP No. 2685 of 1992

¶21

otherwise than by fraud committed by the employee or arising out of clerical mistake cannot be a subject of recovery. I would hold therefore that any action for recovery cannot be made on the ground that the proficiency step up had been wrongly given to the employees and the amount paid should therefore be recovered.

¶22

The respondent had filed along with the written statement a clarification issued by the Director Food and Supplies Department to all the departments that as per the instructions of the Punjab Government department, the period of 8/18 years of proficiency step up should be reckoned only from the date of appointment on regular basis and therefore the number of years in temporary service cannot be counted for proficiency step up. I do not find that there is any challenge either to the instructions or the clarification issued by the Director on 5.12.1990. The petitioners therefore cannot secure the relief that the ad hoc service must also be counted for proficiency step up.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

¶24

directions.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

May 2, 2012 archana

Food and Supply Deptt. Class IV Employees v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Food and Supply Deptt. Class IV Employees v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Didar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Puneet Kumar Singh Vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. & Ors.

P.S.E.B. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Bassi Pathana & Anr.

Yog Raj Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sunil Kumar Jakhar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Katari Vs State of Punjab and Anr.