Paramjit Kaur Vs. Union of India and Others

Paramjit Kaur vs Union of India and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jul 02, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1153686

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1153686
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jul 02, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Paramjit Kaur

Respondent

Union of India and Others

Excerpt

.....dated 29.4.2008. thereafter, the present petitions were filed in which also the reversion of the petitioners has been stayed. the result of all these proceedings is that the petitioners have continued to work as senior assistants till date and, in fact, reached the age of superannuation, but are on an extended period by reason of the punjab government having extended service by a year from the age of 58 to 59 years.in the conspectus of the aforesaid and taking into consideration that the judgment of tribunal in o.a.no.611-ch of 1995 which is stated to have been affirmed by this court, there really cannot be an issue qua the fact that the re-designation was done as per a mistake. however, even if that be the position, the fact remains that the ratio of other ram parkash bhatti’s case (supra) would come into play, i.e., if the employee is not at fault and has not misrepresented, no recovery should take place from him. the petitioners before us have continued to work on the posts right till their age of retirement. they are on extended period of one year which is also going to come to an end shortly. we are, thus, of the view in these peculiar facts and circumstances that there really cannot be any recovery from the petitioners on account of emoluments already paid and the ends of interest of justice would be served by they being permitted to continue to work on the present posts for the remaining couple of chand parkash 2014.07.02 17:50 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.7550-cat of 2008, etc.- 4 - months when even the extended period comes to an end. the period when they have worked on these re-designated posts is more than two decades between the lapse of time before it was detected and the judicial proceedings and, thus, at the fag end of their career they cannot be prejudiced. needless to say, the superannuation benefits would be as per the last pay drawn. the petitions accordingly stand disposed of. ( sanjay kishan kaul ) chief.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1 Civil Writ Petition No.7550-CAT of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2014 Paramjit Kaur …..Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents 2.

Civil Writ Petition No.9672-CAT of 2008 (O&M) Hari Chand …..Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents 3.

Civil Writ Petition No.20015-CAT of 2008 (O&M) Ashok Kumar Malhotra …..Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Deepak Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Aayush Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-9672-CAT-2008 Mr.R.S.Dadwal, Advocate for Mr.Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-20015-CAT-2008 Mr.K.B.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-7550-2008 and for respondents No.6 & 7 in CWP-9672-CAT-2008 and for respondents Mr.Vishal Sodhi, Standing Counsel for U.T.of Chandigarh .Chand Parkash 2014.07.02 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7550-CAT of 2008, etc.- 2 - SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral).These writ petitions lay challenge to a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dated 29.4.2008 and hence are being disposed of by one single order.

One Ram Parkash Bhatti, who was an Assistant, on being re-designated as Senior Assistant, claimed promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-III.

This issue was examined by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A.No.611- CH of 1995, decided on 14.12.2001.

It was held that Shri Bhatti was not entitled to promotion as his re-designation was illegal.

Shri Ram Parkash Bhatti, however, succeeded in second round of litigation in O.A.No.613-CH of 2002 in terms whereof it was held that where pay fixation was erroneously made, the excess amount paid on account of wrong pay fixation is not to be recovered as the employee had no role to play or committed no misrepresentation or fraud.

It appears that the petitioners before us in these petitions are identically situated and an audit objection was raised qua them that they also ought not to have been paid the emoluments of a re-designated post of Senior Assistant by the Audit Department.

This triggered off an action by the respondents whereby the petitioners were sought to be again designated as Accounts Clerks on the premise that there was no post of Senior Assistant which was available.

The petitioners filed petitions Chand Parkash 2014.07.02 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7550-CAT of 2008, etc.- 3 - before the Tribunal and obtained interim ordeRs.though their petitions were ultimately dismissed by the common impugned order dated 29.4.2008.

Thereafter, the present petitions were filed in which also the reversion of the petitioners has been stayed.

The result of all these proceedings is that the petitioners have continued to work as Senior Assistants till date and, in fact, reached the age of superannuation, but are on an extended period by reason of the Punjab Government having extended service by a year from the age of 58 to 59 yeaRs.In the conspectus of the aforesaid and taking into consideration that the judgment of Tribunal in O.A.No.611-CH of 1995 which is stated to have been affirmed by this Court, there really cannot be an issue qua the fact that the re-designation was done as per a mistake.

However, even if that be the position, the fact remains that the ratio of other Ram Parkash Bhatti’s case (supra) would come into play, i.e., if the employee is not at fault and has not misrepresented, no recovery should take place from him.

The petitioners before us have continued to work on the posts right till their age of retirement.

They are on extended period of one year which is also going to come to an end shortly.

We are, thus, of the view in these peculiar facts and circumstances that there really cannot be any recovery from the petitioners on account of emoluments already paid and the ends of interest of justice would be served by they being permitted to continue to work on the present posts for the remaining couple of Chand Parkash 2014.07.02 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7550-CAT of 2008, etc.- 4 - months when even the extended period comes to an end.

The period when they have worked on these re-designated posts is more than two decades between the lapse of time before it was detected and the judicial proceedings and, thus, at the fag end of their career they cannot be prejudiced.

Needless to say, the superannuation benefits would be as per the last pay drawn.

The petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE0207.2014 ( AJAY TEWARI ) parkash* JUDGE Chand Parkash 2014.07.02 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Paramjit Kaur vs Union of India and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition