Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheela Sharma @ Sheela Devi & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 August, 2010
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.13671 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2010
SHEELA SHARMA @ SHEELA DEVI & ORS.
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. JS Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
1. The gist of the claim of the petitioners, who are serving in the department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is in regard to refixation of pay as a consequence of withdrawal of benefit under Proficiency Step-up Scheme.
2. Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that in relation to the same department i.e. Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, this Court while dealing with CWP No.18754 of 2007 (Amarjit Singh v. Civil Writ Petition No.13671 of 2010 2 State of Punjab and others) decided on 31.3.2010, has relegated the petitioner to a departmental Committee. This matter can also be relegated to the said Committee for taking a decision, in the context of the case of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he would have no objection if the claim of the petitioners raised in this petition is considered by the departmental Committee.
5. I have considered the issued.
6. From Amarjit Singh's case (supra), the following needs to be extracted:-
"So far as challenge to the recovery is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy is squarely answered in favour of the petitioners by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors. 2009[3] PLR, 511. Consequently, the recovery orders are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, effected from the petitioners, shall be refunded preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
Adverting to the contention that the petitioners were rightly granted the benefit of proficiency step-up or their seniority was accordingly fixed, in my considered view, their respective claims can not be decided in isolation without hearing the other effected persons and/or ascertaining the correct facts from the record. Such an exercise can be effectively undertaken by a Departmental Committee as well. Accordingly, it is directed that let there be a Department Committee to be headed by an officer not below the rank of the Special/Additional or Joint Secretary of the Health Department along with two other officers, one of whom shall Civil Writ Petition No.13671 of 2010 3 be from the Directorate of Health Services, Punjab, who shall consider the respective claims of the petitioners and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
Suffice it to say that in case the Committee accepts the petitioners' claim, the benefits earlier granted to them shall be restored and consequential arrears and/or revised retiral benefits shall be paid. However, till the Committee takes an appropriate decision, the retiral benefits shall be released, if already not released, as per the revised pay but without prejudice to the petitioners' claim to be decided by the Committee.
Disposed of. Dasti."
7. The petitioners are relegated to the Committee, as constituted under orders passed by this Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra). The decision be taken within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
August 4, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?