High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Dr. Daljit Singh Kahela & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-749-2002  RD-P&H 3076 (11 May 2006)
Civil Writ Petition No.749 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: May 11, 2006.
Dr. Daljit Singh Kahela & Anr.
State of Punjab & Ors.
Present: Shri N.K. Suneja, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri B.S. Sewak, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the applicant-respondent.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
CM No.5069 of 2006
With the consent of the parties, the main case is taken up on board for final disposal.
C.M. stands disposed of.
In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the letters dated 9.11.2001 and 20.12.2001 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) in terms whereof the benefit of increments granted to them on account of higher qualifications has been withdrawn and recoveries are sought to be effected.
The petitioners, on the basis of qualifications of MBBS, joined the Punjab Civil Medical Services (PCMS) on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). While in service, they were Civil Writ Petition No.749 of 2002 -: 2 :- selected for the post-graduation degree course which they successfully completed. It is the petitioners' case that in terms of the government policy contained in the order dated 27.10.1993 and 9.6.2000 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), they were granted six additional increments in lieu of the post- graduation qualifications possessed by them. While the petitioners have been enjoying the benefits of these additional increments, vide the impugned orders, the said benefit was withdrawn and recoveries were sought to be effected.
Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has been filed.
It is contended that since the petitioners came to be appointed in PCMS prior to 1.1.1996, the benefit of additional increments in terms of government orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2, is not admissible to them.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that:- (i) the impugned action has been taken without observing the principles of natural justice; (ii) the orders directing recoveries have been passed by an incompetent authority.
Though, Learned State Counsel has seriously disputed the second contention, he does not dispute the fact that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners prior to ordering withdrawal of the additional increments or effecting monthly recoveries from them.
After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, and having regard to the fact that the impugned orders visit the petitioners with civil consequences and, thus, the same could not have been passed without Civil Writ Petition No.749 of 2002 -: 3 :- observing the principles of natural justice, the same are hereby quashed.
However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and after observing the principles of natural justice.
May 11, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.