Quashed

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Dec 2021CWP/24718/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed an government order withdrawing a petitioner's higher pay scale. Relying on Rifq Masih, the court held that such a grant, made at the department's error without fault on the petitioner's part, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively to cause recovery.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.05.2018 set aside; liberty to pass fresh orders prospectively; respondents directed to arrange 7th CPC benefits.

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-24718-2021 Date of Decision: 06.12.2021

RAM KUMAR

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶9

Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶11

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Petition herein inter alia is for issuance of a writ in the nature

¶13

of certiorari for quashing a letter/order dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 vide which, the higher pay scale granted to the petitioner vide an earlier order dated 27.04.1994 (Annexure P-3) has been

¶14

withdrawn.

¶15

Learned State counsel, on advance service, appears and opposes for issuance of notice of motion. He argues that the petitioner is working on a non-technical post of Veterinary Dresser in the office of Veterinary Surgeon. Hence, his pay scale has been rightly withdrawn.

¶16

Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by

¶17

Apex Court judgment rendered in State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih AIR 2015 SC 1267 . The impugned order is not sustainable on that

¶18

short ground alone.

¶19

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.10 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

Assuming, that the petitioner being a Veterinary Dresser, concededly a Class-IV post, was accorded benefit of erroneous pay scale for no fault of his, the same could not have been even then retrospectively withdrawn in order to cause recovery from him.

¶21

In the premise, the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure P1) is set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh orders in accordance with law, with prospective effect, if deemed fit.

¶22

As regards the other relief qua the revision of pay scale of the petitioner, claiming the benefit of 7^th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016, it is expected of the respondents to pass appropriate administrative orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶23

Disposed of accordingly.

¶24

December 06, 2021 (ARUN MONGA) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶25

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.10 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Priya Chibber@Priya Chhibber Vs Bhupesh Sharma

Jitender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Akash Vs State of Haryana and Others

Salochna Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.