Sandep Randhawa v. State Of Punjab And ORS
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.08.2023
1. CWP-5922-2002 (O&M) Dr. Sandeep Randhawa .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
2. CWP-12478-2002 (O&M) Dr. Rajiv Singla and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
3. CWP-17291-2002 (O&M) Dr. Nisha Jain .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
4. CWP-3249-2003 (O&M) Dr. Amrit Kaur and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
5. CWP-18121-2004 (O&M) Dr. Kiranjot Kaur Bali .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
-2CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present:
Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-5922-2002).
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate with Mr. Kasish Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-12478-2002).
None for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-17291-2002, CWP-3249-2003 and CWP-18121-2004).
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J (ORAL) 1.
By this common order, five writ petitions bearing CWP-5922-2002, CWP-12478-2002, CWP-17291-2002, CWP-3249-2003 and CWP-18121-2004, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being decided.
2.
The challenge in the writ petitions is to the order dated 23.05.2001 which was quashed by this Court in CWP-17156-2008, titled 'Dr. Jagmohan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others', decided on 01.07.2009, wherein, it was held as under:- "In view of the above circumstances, the action of the respondents withdrawing the benefit of additional increments retrospectively is unsustainable in law. The impugned order to the effect it directs the withdrawal of the benefit of additional increments and consequential recovery from the petitioners is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly.
The order of re-fixation having been quashed, the consequential recovery is also quashed. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the respondents that the benefit was conferred upon the petitioners on their misrepresentation or fraud in any manner."
The Letter Patent Appeal No.1818 of 2011 preferred by the State also stands dismissed, vide order dated 11.01.2012.
-3Since there was an interim order dated 17.01.2002 passed by this Court in CWP-1130-2002 staying the recovery from the petitioners, the same is made absolute and accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) 29.08.2023 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No