Teja Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Jasbir Singh, J.—By filing Civil Writ Petition No. 20504 of 2011, appellant Teja Singh challenged withdrawal of financial benefits given to him on account of higher responsibility increment in the nature of proficiency step up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (In short "ACP"). Consequently, recovery was also ordered to be effected. Withdrawal of the above benefit and recovery were held to be justified by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, .

Before us, the appellant has failed to show as to how he is entitled to continue with the benefits granted. Withdrawal order appears to be justified. So far as recovery is concerned, it is nobody''s case that for getting financial benefits, the appellant has played any fraud or made any misrepresentation.

Counsel for the appellant states that in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 2009 (3) SCT 333, under such like situation, recovery cannot be effected.

Both the judgments in Chandi Prasad''s and Budh Ram''s cases (supra), were considered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Krishan Kumar Bansal and Others (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24607 of 2010, decided on 2.8.2013) and judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Budh Ram''s case (supra) was approved.

In view of above, order, passed by the learned Single Judge, to the extent of recovery of the benefits already paid to the appellant, is not justified and this appeal is partly allowed to that extent only.