PALWINDER SINGH HEAD DRAFTSMAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of motion. Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controvers\involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at motion stage itself without insisting for reply.

(2.) The petitioner is presently serving as Head Draftsman. Aggrieved of the re-fixation of his pay scale and consequential recovery, the petitioner filed CWP No. 5551 of 2000 in this Court. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.7.2008 whereby the order impugned therein came to be quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Government for reconsideration by observing principles of natural justice. As a consequence of the aforesaid directions, the respondents again reconsidered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 10.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed at various stages and vide a separate order/communication dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-11), an amount of Rs. 1,13,175/- has been ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the re-fixation as also the recovery.

(3.) From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the benefit was given on the basis of some government instructions. The controversy regarding recovery is settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CWP No. 2799 of 2008 alongwith other connected matters (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 3 SCT 333) decided on 22.5.2009 wherein following observations have been made :