AMITA RENUKA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is only in respect to the recovery to the tune of Rs.3,85,243.00, which has been done from the DCRG of the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said recovery has been done from the petitioner after her retirement, which is not only against the well settled law as settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015 4 SCC 334, but also on the fact that the pay of the petitioner was revised by the respondents unilaterally without giving any show cause notice after the retirement keeping in view the objection which was raised by the Accountant General, Punjab.

(3.) The facts as mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse on 2/6/1981 by the respondents in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. After appointment, the petitioner came on deputation and remained with Chandigarh Administration from 6/10/1983 till 7/7/2013. On the said day, petitioner was promoted as a Nursing Sister and was transferred back to the State of Punjab. While working as a Nursing Sister, petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Thereafter, petitioner availed two years' extension period and ultimately retired on 31/12/2017. When petitioner was in service, her case was sent to the Accountant General, Punjab for fixation of her pensionary benefits. While processing the case of the petitioner, the Accountant General, Punjab issued a letter on 10/10/2017 to the respondentDepartment raising certain objections, which objections are as under:-