Singh Varinder 2014.04.01 16:51 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at AT CHANDIGARH Chandigarh CWP No.5067 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.3.2014 Raj Kumar Kapoor (deceased) and others .Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for petitioner Nos.2 to 4.
Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The petitioners have approached this court impugning the action of the respondents whereby pay scale granted to them has been withdrawn and as a consequence thereof, the recovery was directed from them.
The benefit was granted to the petitioners vide order dated 22.1.1991 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in terms of notification issued by the State of Punjab on 15.6.1990.
It was pertaining to higher scales as Junior Scale Stenographers Grade-I and Grade-II.
The aforesaid scales granted to them were withdrawn in terms of a letter of the Government of Punjab dated 20.9.1991.
As a consequence thereof, the District & Sessions Judge vide letter dated 15.3.1994 had withdrawn the benefit already granted and directed recovery from the petitioneRs.The same was ` 19,210/- from petitioner No.1- Raj Kumar Kapoor, ` 2,832/- from petitioner No.2 Kulwant Singh, ` 8,901.80 from petitioner No.3 Surjan Singh and ` 84/- from petitioner No.4 Avtar Singh.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that petitioner No.1 expired on 24.7.2004; petitioner No.2 is still in service; petitioner No.3 retired on 30.4.2008, whereas petitioner No.4 sought voluntary retirement on 30.9.2005.
At the time of admission of the writ petition, recovery of the amount from the petitioners was stayed.
Singh Varinder 2014.04.01 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP No.5067 of 1994 -2- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that petitioner No.1 from whom ` 19,210/- were sought to be recovered has already expired, whereas petitioner No.3 from whom ` 8,901.80 were sought to be recovered retired about six years back, and the amount recoverable from other two petitioners is quite meagre, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 15.3.1994, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, directing recovery of amount from the petitioners deserves to be quashed.
Reference can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs State of Uttarakhand and otheRs.2012 (4) SCT227 Ordered accordingly.
27.3.2014 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge