CWP No.15245 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15245 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Sukhdarshan Singh and others . . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. H.R. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners are the retired employees of the Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Government of Punjab. They seek quashing of the order dated 22.07.2009 (Annexure P1), whereby, their pay has been reduced/refixed after withdrawal of the benefit of Proficiency Step-up and ACP and consequential recovery is sought to be effected from their Gratuity. (2). The petitioners’ further grievance is that no show cause notice was served upon them before passing the impugned orders. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders and other material on record. (4). Suffice it to observe that the impugned orders have serious civil consequences as the same not only entail recovery from the petitioners but have also adversely affected the retiral CWP No.15245 of 2009.doc - 2 – benefits. The impugned action could not have been taken against the petitioners without any show cause notice to them. (5). For the reason afore-stated, the impugned orders dated 22.07.2009 (Annexure P1) cannot sustain in law and are hereby quashed with the following directions:- i. the respondents shall issue a show cause notice, if so required, to the petitioners disclosing the reason(s) for withdrawal of the benefits earlier granted to them; ii. the petitioners shall be granted four weeks’ time to submit their reply(ies), if any; iii. the competent authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with the Government Policy/rules and the decisions of this Court relied upon by both the sides; iv. The final decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of submission of the reply (ies) to the show cause notice(s); (6). Needless to say that should the petitioners’ explanation(s) find favour with the competent authority, in that event their pension/retiral benefits shall be suitably refixed and consequential arrears, if any, shall also be paid to them within a period of three months from the date of such determination. (7). However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners does not appear to have misled the authorities nor have misrepresented the facts and since no fraudulent or deceptive motive for gaining any monetary benefit has been attributed to them in the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that no CWP No.15245 of 2009.doc - 3 – recovery ought to be effected from them, as ruled by the Full Bench in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511. (8). The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the orders qua recovery of the excess payment of the Proficiency Step-up are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the petitioners shall continue to draw their pension/retiral benefits as per the refixed/reduced pay subject to the final decision that the competent authority shall take pursuant to the show cause notice(s) to be served on them. (9). Since the respondents have not filed any counter- reply/affidavit, it is clarified that if, on verification of the records, it is found that the petitioners had actually misrepresented the facts and/or had obtained the monetary benefits through fraud or deception, the respondents shall be at liberty to seek review of this order qua the recovery part within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (10). Ordered accordingly. (11). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar