Manpreet Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation And Another

116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10309 of 2020 DATE OF DECISION : 21.07.2020 Manpreet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Punjab Ware Housing Corporation and another

...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Rana, Advocate and Mr. J. P. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Triptjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent-Corporation.

(Presence marked through video conference).

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1-Punishing Authority to stop the recovery of Rs.33,290/- (60% of his salary) per month from his salary, till the pendency of statutory appeal dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure P-3). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that similarly situated employees like the petitioner had approached this Court impugning the recovery proposed to be imposed by the respondent/ Corporation, vide CWP No. 19950 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 24.08.2018, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that until the statutory review petition is decided by the Reviewing Authority, future proposed recovery shall not be effected qua the employees. Notwithstanding, SONU 2020.07.21 05:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

contends learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to punishment order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-2), the respondent Corporation has started recovering Rs.33,290/- per month from petitioner's salary, without waiting for decision in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is similarly situated with the petitioners in CWP No. 19950 of 2018. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Triptjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, who has joined the proceedings on advance service of petition, accepts notice and seeks time to file reply.

5.

This Court is, however, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending as neither any proceedings are warranted nor any return is required, given the admitted position that statutory review petition is still pending before the Reviewing Authority. 6.

In the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the pending review petition/appeal by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, as within six months from today. Future proposed recovery pursuant to the impugned order shall not be effected qua the petitioner till the disposal of the statutory appeal/review petition.

7.

Disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA) JULY 21, 2020 JUDGE Shalini Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable ;

Yes/No SONU 2020.07.21 05:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document