Rajwanti v. State Of Haryana And Others

CWP No.17986 of 2015 and 2024:PHHC:027189 CWP No.17381 of 2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH ***** 1.CWP No.17986 of 2015 Date of Decision : 27.2.2024 Malti ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents

2. CWP No.17381 of 2018 (O & M) 2024:PHHC:027194 Rajwanti ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate and Mr. P.C. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana --- TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

Since a common issue arises for adjudication in both these petitions, the same are being decided together. Facts are taken from CWP No.17986 of 2015, which has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 24.7.2015, Annexure P-2, whereby benefit under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme has been withdrawn, and recovery of Rs.1,36,925/- has been ordered from the petitioner after re-fixation of pay.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the only grievance is against recovery that has been ordered to be effected pursuant Ashwani Kumar 2024.03.05 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.17986 of 2015 and 2024:PHHC:027189 CWP No.17381 of 2018 -2-
to withdrawal of first financial upgradation granted on completion of ten years service.

3.

Learned State counsel contends that financial upgradation was withdrawn as per provisions of the ACP Scheme, since the petitioners had foregone promotion. The issue stands decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.2.2018 passed in LPA No.322 of 2018, titled Surinder Kumari and others v. State of Haryana and another, upholding the withdrawn in the event of foregoing promotion. She, however, fairly concedes that in view of the judgment, recovery cannot be effected from the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.

5.

Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed of restraining the respondents from effecting recovery pursuant to the impugned orders dated 24.7.2015 and 26.4.2010, in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Surinder Kumari case (supra). 6.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 27.2.2024 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2024.03.05 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document