CWP No.18449 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18449 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 **** Kuldip Singh . . . . 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. PK Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. IS Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release the deducted and detained amount of salary which is said to have not been paid to the petitioner from August, 1998 till June 2007. (2). The respondents have filed the reply admitting the non- payment of the salary to the petitioner. Vide the additional affidavit placed on record today, it is sought to be explained that the salary of the petitioner has been withheld on account of the alleged shortages and in terms of the circulars issued by the Head Office. CWP No.18449 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). During the course of hearing, it is not disputed that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor his liability for the alleged shortages was ever determined. (4). Faced with this, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation states that as per the instructions received by him, the respondent-Corporation is willing to release the withheld salary of the petitioner but will adjust the same against the recovery order(s) already passed against the petitioner. pursuant to the charge-sheet in terms whereof the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,22,50,558/- to the Corporation. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the salary to the petitioner for the above- mentioned period with liberty that if any recovery order (s) has already been passed against the petitioner, the released salary may be adjusted against the said recovery. However, it shall not preclude the petitioner to impugn the recovery order(s) passed against him in accordance with law. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 07.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge