A writ petition challenging a recovery order and seeking fixation of pay was filed. The State counsel submitted that the basis for recovery had been withdrawn and the order cancelled, rendering the petition infructuous. The Court disposed of the petition accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:PHHC:009039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
303-12 ***** CWP No.16911 of 2005 Date of Decision : 23.1.2024 Santosh Verma ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: None for the petitioner
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):
This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.9.2005, Annexure P-3, vide which recovery was ordered to be effected from the petitioners on the basis of letter dated 22.08.2003, and further directing the respondents to fix her pay at Rs.5750/with effect from 01.01.1996 in the revised functional pay scale of Rs.54508000, with all consequential benefits.
the same shall be done, in case it has not been restored/refixed as yet.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE
23.1.2024
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
Ashwani
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.25 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging the recovery order and seeking pay fixation has been rendered infructuous by the withdrawal of the impugned letter and cancellation of the recovery?
Santosh Verma
State of Haryana and others
Tribhuvan Dahiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
