AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.—Notice of motion.
Mr.J.S. Puri, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents.
In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the Respondents at this stage.
The Petitioner was working as a Beldar on work-charge basis with Respondent No. 3, namely, the Executive Engineer, Warehousing Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpur Kandi Township, Pathankot, and has retired w.e.f. 31.12.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. He seeks quashing of the order vide which the retrenched increments given to the Petitioner have been withdrawn and a recovery of Rs. 35,973/-has been sought to be effected from him.
During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by a decision dated 27.5.2009 rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No. 5568 of 2008 Charan Dass and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.), the concluding para whereof reads as follows:
In view of the above, the Respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the Petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the Respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently, the pay of the Petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two months. The Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits of the salary of the Petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the afore stated decision of this Court in Charan Dass''s case (supra).