E-Paper
HC directs Punjab CS to explain unnecessary litigation
Catching the Punjab government on the wrong foot for unnecessarily forcing its employees to flood courts with petitions challenging orders of financial recoveries without any fraud attributable to the employee, the Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the state chief secretary to give an explanation.
Catching the Punjab government on the wrong foot for unnecessarily forcing its employees to flood courts with petitions challenging orders of financial recoveries without any fraud attributable to the employee, the Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the state chief secretary to give an explanation.
The directions came from the bench headed by justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa on a petition filed by Neel Kamal, a retired senior assistant in the office of the executive engineer, Ferozepur canal circle.
The bench said that the situation reflected "complete apathy which the state has towards its employees. Immediate remedial steps are called for".
The petitioner, who had retired in April 2010, submitted that the benefit of proficiency set-up increments that had been granted to him while in service were sought to be withdrawn through orders dated January 27, 2011. The court was informed that a recovery of Rs 75,256 had already been made from his retirement gratuity illegally.
After going through the case, the bench said, "In the past two to three years, this court has intervened in hundreds of petitions to quash such recovery proceedings and where the recovery has already been effected, it has directed refund."
Taking serious note of the state's functioning, the bench said, "Yet the flood of petitions of such nature continues unabated. This shows the scant regard the state has toward the settled position of law as regards recovery of financial benefit for which there has been no misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the employee."
The bench said that the position in law is well settled that "if some financial benefit has already been released in favour of an employee in which there is no misinterpretation or fraud attributable to the employee, then, such recovery cannot be effected."
The chief secretary has been directed to file his reply within three weeks.
