Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh Gill And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 May, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No.8560 of 2010.doc -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.8560 of 2010
Date of Decision: 11.05.2010
****
Gurdeep Singh Gill and another . . . . Petitioners
VS.
State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
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. R.K. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab
*****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
(2). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioners impugn the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step has been withdrawn and after reducing/re-fixing their pay, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected.
(3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted their challenge qua CWP No.8560 of 2010.doc -2- 'recovery' only and submits that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No.697 of 2010 titled as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others, which was decided in the light of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the operative part whereof reads as under:-
"Following the dictum in Budh Ram's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed in part; the action of the respondents in ordering recovery of the excess payments received by the petitioner as a result of Stepping-up of his pay or grant of ACP is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of his pay and consequential re-determination of the retiral benefits are upheld. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Since the respondents have not filed any counter- reply/affidavit, it shall be open to them to verify the records and if it is found that the petitioner had actually misrepresented the facts and/or played fraud etc. to gain the monetary benefits, to seek review of this order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
(4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in the above-reproduced terms.
(5). Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
CWP No.8560 of 2010.doc -3-
JUDGE
11.05.2010
vishal shonkar