Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 18 February, 2010
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.6773 of 2008
Date of Decision:- 18.02.2010
Baljeet Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Union of India and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.M.S.Sachdev, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging that without passing an order, their salary has been reduced by the respondents and recovery has been initiated. He contends that the principles of natural justice need to be complied with, before any order or action is taken which has severe consequences. He submits that no fraud was played by the petitioners while they were granted the excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay. He submits that at least notice was required to be issued to the petitioners and if they were unable to satisfy the respondents with regard to their claim, then only an appropriate order could have been passed. He accordingly prays that the action taken by the respondents reducing the pay of the petitioners and making recoveries cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents admits that although notice was given to the petitioners but no speaking order has been passed and, therefore, he states that now fresh notice would be given to the C.W.P.No.6773 of 2008 -2- petitioners and on consideration of their reply thereto, if the same is now found to be satisfactory, appropriate orders in accordance with law would be passed. Counsel for the respondents further states that the contention of the petitioners that they had not committed any fraud upon the Cantonment Board, Amritsar, is not acceptable in the light of the fact that the person who had granted them the benefit has been retired compulsorily after taking action against him.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
Without going into or commenting on the merits of the case, further recovery from the petitioners shall remain stayed because of reduction of the salary, till a decision is taken on the notice which is to be given to the petitioners and a reply thereto is submitted by the respondents and the reply is not found satisfactory. In case the respondents are satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioners to the notice, the recovery, if any, effected from the petitioners, shall be refunded to them.
Liberty is granted to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioners to which the petitioners may file reply and the same shall be considered and appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law be passed by the respondents and conveyed to the petitioners.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.
February 18, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE