Partly allowed

Rameshwar Parshad v. Hry State Warehousingh Corp

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2013LPA/1942/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent Appeal against a single judge order dismissing a writ petition. The court held that a recovery order affecting pension benefits cannot be passed without a show cause notice. The appeal was allowed, the recovery order quashed, and the matter remanded to the Corporation to issue a notice.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order set aside. Writ petition allowed. Corporation directed to issue comprehensive show cause notice within one month.

Rameshwar Parshad Vs Hry State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

L.P.A. No. 1942 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: December 03, 2013

Rameshwar Parshad

... Appellant

Vs.

Haryana State Warehousing Corporation

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶10

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

Present: Mr. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

Surya Kant, J (Oral)

¶15

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the order of recovery of 1,77,470/-. The appellant was Manager in respondent Corporation. He retired from service in May, 2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. It appears that some of his retiral benefits were not released. He made representations including dated 12.1.2009. In response thereto, the Corporation conveyed him on13.7.2009 that various recoveries were liable to be effected from him including 1,77,470/- “on account of carry over charges”. Thereafter, retiral benefits were released vide order dated 27.12.2011 after making the above stated deductions. The aggrieved appellant came to this court but his writ petition has been dismissed in limine.

¶16

The Corporation having been called upon, we have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

Though it is urged by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation that the appellant was informed well in advance on 13.7.2009 Deepak Kumar 2014.01.10 11:57that certain recoveries are required to be effected from him, he, however, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

L.P.A. No. 1942 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

could not dispute the fact that no show cause notice was served upon the appellant while he was in service or thereafter before determining his liability. The order of recovery indeed has civil consequences, hence it could not be passed without a show cause. The appellant deserves a limited right to explain and show cause that no recovery was liable to be effected from him. As no such opportunity was given, we allow this appeal; set aside the order dated 21.9.2012 of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition and set-aside the recovery order. However, instead of directing the Corporation to release the withheld amount, we direct the Corporation to give comprehensive self explanatory show cause notice to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, to which the appellant shall submit his reply within one month from the date it is received. The Corporation shall consider the reply objectively and then dispose of the matter by passing a speaking order. The aggrieved party may have recourse to the remedy as available in law.

¶21

(Surya Kant) Judge

¶22

December 03, 2013 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge

¶23

Deepak Kumar 2014.01.10 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

Rameshwar Parshad v. Hry State Warehousingh Corp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Parshad v. Hry State Warehousingh Corp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vishwakarma Sewing Machine Industries, Bassi Pathana Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Lajpat Rai Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Vs Chairman and Ors.

Malho Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Kadimi Organics Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Mann and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.