High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hem Raj vs Pseb And Another on 22 September, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hem Raj vs Pseb And Another on 22 September, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                    CWP No.6215 of 2008
                                    Date of decision : 22-09-2008


Hem Raj

                                                   ....Petitioner

                           VERSUS


PSEB and Another

                                                   ....Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH


Present: Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

          Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the respondents.

          1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
              see the judgement?

          2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

          3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the
             Digest?


M.M.KUMAR, J.

Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated

25-6-2007 (Annexure P3) effecting recovery from the gratuity payable

to the husband of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.84,702/-. It is

conceded position that on the basis of some enquiry initiated against

the husband of the petitioner findings were recorded that he was

guilty of negligence which resulted into loss to the Punjab State
CWP No.6215 of 2008
-2-

Electricity Board-respondent No.1. Therefore invoking rule 2.2 (b) of

the Punjab Civil Service of the Rules Volume II, a cut in the pension

@5% per month was effected for a period of 2 years. Despite the

deduction of pension, respondent has also effected recovery from the

gratuity amount to the extent of Rs.84702/-. This amount has been

recovered without any order.

In the written statement filed by respondent No.1 and 2

there is no justification offered for the aforementioned action. No

recovery can be effected beyond the records. The punishment

imposed on the husband of the petitioner is for deduction of 5% per

month from the pension payable to the husband of the petitioner for a

period of two years.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find

that the order dated 25-6-2007 (Annexure P3) cannot be sustained.

The only punishment imposed upon the husband of the petitioner

was cut in the pension to the extent of 5% per month for a period of

two years. Therefore order dated 25-6-2007 (Annexure P3) is set

aside. The respondents are directed to make the payment of

Rs.84,702/- to the petitioner who being the wife is his legal

representative.

In so far as the cut in pension @ 5 percent is concerned

the period of two years would come to an end on 18-5-2009 and the

deduction @ 5 percent would continue only till the expiry of period of

two years. Thereafter the rights of the petitioner for family pension
CWP No.6215 of 2008
-3-

etc. would come in play which shall be granted to her in accordance

with rules.

(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE

(JORA SINGH)
JUDGE

22nd September, 2008
manju