Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lok Nath Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 31 January, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.6834 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.01.2012
****
Lok Nath Sharma . . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . 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. SK Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab
****
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioner who retired as Lecturer in Hindi from the Education Department, Government of Punjab is aggrieved by the orders dated 08.06.2006 & 11.02.2009 (Annexures P4 & P5, respectively) whereby the benefit of increment(s) granted to him on acquiring the qualification of M.Ed. has been withdrawn and consequential recovery of Rs.1,87,492/- is sought to be effected. (2). As far as the recovery is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue stands answered in favour of the petitioner by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors. 2009[3] PLR, 511.
CWP No.6834 of 2011.doc -2-(3). Consequently, the recovery order(s) is/are hereby quashed.
Recovery, if any effected from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. (4). As regards the petitioner's claim for restoring the benefit of increment(s), as stated above, this Court vide order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No. 16323 of 2008 [Smt. Sudarshana Devi & Anr. V State of Punjab & Ors.] has constituted an Officers' Committee to look into such like claims which essentially require verification of the facts. The writ petition qua the afore-stated relief, is accordingly disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the Officers' Committee, who shall consider the same in accordance with the Rules/Government instructions and shall make appropriate recommendations after hearing the petitioner in person, if so required.
(5). The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. (6). Till the Committee takes any appropriate decision, the petitioner shall continue to draw his retiral benefits as per the reduced/re-fixed pay.
(7). Dasti.
31.01.2012 (SURYA KANT)
vishal shonkar
Judge