C.W.P.No.9649 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P.No.9649 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.9.2008 Om Parkash ..Petitioner Versus Kurukshetra University and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Goel, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? M.M.KUMAR,J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to accord him seniority keeping in view the date of appointment and also to grant culminating benefits . In the written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondents have taken the stand that there is no change in the seniority and the cutting pointed out by the petitioner was relatable to the case of reposting of other Clerks and not regarding their position in the seniority list. It has been clarified that presumption of the petitioner that seniority has been disturbed is absolutely wrong and without any basis. Therefore, the issue of change in the seniority has been concluded. With regard to the grant of other reliefs of culminating benefits, it has been conceded that the petitioner along with other was allowed Ist ACP Scale of Rs.4000-6000. According to which, it has further been asserted that Ist ACP Scale is admissible to an employee on completion of 10 years of regular C.W.P.No.9649 of 2008 2 satisfactory service and the second ACP Scale is to be granted on completion of 20 years regular satisfactory service. The stand taken by the respondents is that there was inadvertent mistake on part of the department in granting the benefit to the petitioner with effect from 1.2.2004, whereas it was admissible to him from 1.11.2004. It has been pleaded that due to misunderstanding that the ACP Scale was to be given on first of next month when an employee completes 10 years of service, it was granted. The petitioner completes 10 years of service on 17.1.2004 and that is why, he was granted Ist ACP with effect from 1.2.2004 though he was entitled for the same with effect from 1.11.2004, i.e., from the date persons juniors to him were granted the benefit of Ist ACP. It is conceded position that no notice has been given before order withdrawing the benefit was passed. Therefore, action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the petitioner is liable to be set aside. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The seniority of the petitioner shall be kept intact and the recovery effected from the salary of the petitioner shall be refunded to him. However, it shall not debar the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter for correcting the mistake, if any, by proceeding in accordance with law. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE September 24,2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE