Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Surendra Singh Bisht vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation ... on 21 April, 2017

Author: Rajiv Sharma

Bench: Rajiv Sharma

WPSS No.754 of 2014
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents.

Heard.

Petitioner was granted the benefit of Second Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) on 25.07.2012. The same was altered to Third ACP vide order dated 30.08.2013 without hearing the petitioner. Since the petitioner's salary was affected, the order became punitive. Petitioner ought to have been heard before issuance of order dated 30.08.2013 and consequential order dated 09.04.2014 whereby the recovery was ordered from the salary of the petitioner.

The salary of an employee is his property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the authorities concerned at the time when the benefit of Second ACP was granted to him on 25.7.2012. Petitioner has spent the amount considering the same to be legitimate. Thus, at this stage belated stage, it would cause immense hardship to the petitioner in case the recovery is ordered to be effected.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.08.2013 and consequential order dated 09.04.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law except to make the recovery from the petitioner.

(Rajiv Sharma, J.) 21.04.2017 JKJ