Quashed

Gurdas Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CWP/15233/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order ordering recovery of money from his gratuity due to alleged wrong pay fixation. Relying on Chandi Prasad Uniyal, the Court set aside the recovery order directing release of gratuity and granted liberty to claim interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order dated 13.7.2012 set aside; death-cum-retiral gratuity to be released within one month; liberty granted to claim interest.

Gurdas Ram Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15233 OF 2012 :{ 1 }:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: MAY 14, 2013

Gurdas Ram

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.

¶12

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court, praying for quashing of the impugned letter/order dated 13.7.2012, Annexure P- 3, vide which recovery of `97,442/- has been ordered to be made from the gratuity of the petitioner.

¶15

It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired on 30.6.2011 after attaining the age of superannuation. The retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner. He then approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.9395 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order

¶16

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15233 OF 2012 :{ 2 }:

¶17

dated 18.5.2012, Annexure P-2, directing respondent No.3, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Amritsar-I, to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of retiral benefits and pass a speaking order within a period of two months. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, order dated 13.7.2012, Annexure P-3, has been passed by the respondents, ordering recovery of `97,442/-, to be deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner on the ground of wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that said action of the respondents is not sustainable in the light of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012 (8) SCC 417. His further contention is that even the amount due towards leave encashment and the General Provident Fund has been released to the petitioner after an inordinate delay. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment.

¶18

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that due to wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner, he had gained the benefit, to which he was, otherwise not entitled to and accordingly, recovery is to be effected from him so that the public exchequer is not put to burden unnecessarily. He further contends that the petitioner is not entitled to attain undue enrichment because of the mistake committed by the officials of the Department. Counsel for the respondents further states that the claim of the petitioner for grant of

¶19

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15233 OF 2012 :{ 3 }:

¶20

retiral benefits was duly submitted to the Accountant General, who raised an objection and returned the file with the remarks that first recovery of the amount of `97,442/- be effected from the petitioner and thereafter the case be submitted for release of pensionary benefits. He, on this basis, contends that there is no delay on the part of the respondents in release of retiral benefits to the petitioner.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

¶22

In the light of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (supra), recovery, which is being sought to be effected from the petitioner vide order dated 13.7.2012, Annexure P-3, can not be sustained, as it has been held therein that the said recovery cannot be made from the retiral benefits, especially from gratuity.

¶23

The impugned order dated 13.7.2013, Annexure P-3, is, therefore, set-aside. As regards the claim of the petitioner for interest on the retiral benefits, liberty is granted to him to submit a representation to the competent authority for the grant of interest on delayed payment, which claim shall be considered by the respondents and appropriate orders be passed thereon within a period of one month from the date of submission of such representation.

¶24

In case the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on

¶25

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15233 OF 2012 :{ 4 }:

¶26

delayed payment is accepted, the consequential benefits be released to him within a further period of one month.

¶27

In the light of the above, direction is also issued to the respondents to release the death-cum-retiral gratuity amount to the petitioner within a period of one month from today.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to challenge the order of wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner on the basis of which recovery was sought to be effected. Prayer granted.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

May 14, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) khurmi JUDGE

Gurdas Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdas Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Ajay Vs State of Haryana

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

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Pal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Satya Pal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.