Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh vs Pspcl & Ors on 31 July, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
LPA No.510 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.07.2013
****
Amar Singh . . . . Appellant
VS.
PSPCL & Ors. . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. BD Sharma, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. GS Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents
****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). This Letters Patent Appeal impugns the order dated 28.01.2013 of the learned Single Judge whereby appellant's writ petition challenging the order of refixation of pay and consequential recovery, has been dismissed on the ground that the impugned notice was served on him in compliance to a Civil Court decree. There is no dispute and it is so evident from the judgement and decree of the learned Civil Court dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P2) that civil suit was filed by the appellant which was decreed holding him entitled for refixation of his pay and the respondent-Board was directed to "refix the pay of the plaintiff as per rules and to release the arrears accordingly".
(2). In purported compliance to the civil court decree the respondents have further reduced the pay of appellant on the pretext of refixation. The notice impugned by the appellant was thus bordering Vishal V 2013.08.13 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.510 of 2013 -2- contempt. However, we need not to go into the merits of the entire aspect. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner's challenge to the impugned notice requires determination on merits. (3). For the reasons afore-stated, we allow the appeal; set aside the order dated 28.01.2013 and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
(4). Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 26.08.2013. The respondents shall be at liberty to file written statement before the learned Single Judge.
(5). Till the decision in the writ petition, recovery shall remain stayed.
(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
(Surya Kant)
Kant)
Judge
31.
31.07.2013
07.2013 (Surinder Gupta)
Gupta)
vishal shonkar
Judge
Vishal V
2013.08.13 14:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document